Authorship Workshops: Translating your Thesis into a Publication Dealing with review decisions; ethical issues in the review process Margaret Tarpley, MLS Kijabe Hospital, Vanderbilt Department of Surgery & Institute for Global Health

Dealing with Review Decisions

Peer Reviewer’s Point of View Does the paper present new research, new data, or a new perspective on an old problem? Did the PI (principal investigator) obtain ethics review committee approval for the project? If an abstract is required, was one provided? Is the paper well written (i.e., good grammar, proper use of English, spelling and punctuation correct, does it make sense, etc.)? If statistics are used, are they appropriate and correct? Are there references and are they properly formatted according to the publication guidelines, complete (all required information), and correct? [The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) “Samples of Formatted References for Authors of Journal Articles” at https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html is helpful].

Peer Reviewer’s Choices of Recommendation Accept Minor revisions Major revisions Reject

Accepted Celebrate and let the co-authors know they also have a new CV entry—”In press”

Minor Revisions Celebrate that this will likely be accepted, if You read the reviewer comments very carefully and make all the adjustments or additions or corrections requested You resubmit the corrected manuscript within the deadline given (if there is one)

Major Revisions Be grateful that the paper was not rejected Read the reviewer comments very carefully and make all the adjustments or additions or corrections requested Resubmit the corrected manuscript within the deadline given (if there is one)

Rejected Study the reviewer comments carefully and decide if you can make the suggested changes or improvements Think about other journals that might be more accepting of your manuscript Decide if you are willing to rework and resubmit

Ethical Issues for Reviewers The peer reviewer agrees to review a manuscript within a time frame and should honor that commitment The reviewer keeps confidential his review and does not “borrow” ideas for his own use Are the peer reviewers free from bias—reviewers should not have close personal or professional relationships with the authors –this is also a conflict of interest that must be declared. Likely the reviewers will recuse themselves The reviewer commits to a careful and fair review and writes down comments as well as suggestions for improvements that might help the authors if rewriting is required

Ethical Issues in the Review Process All research must be vetted by an ethics review committee (IERC/IRB) for approval or exemption before the project is launched. The reviewer will look for evidence of this in the paper. If the project is an international collaboration, are there authors from the host country(ies) and not just expatriate authors? Is there evidence of a literature search and does it appear that the authors make reference to all the materials consulted? Failure to give credit for ideas or information presented in the paper is called plagiarism and is a serious ethical breech if discovered. Is any conflict of interest declared or stated as “none "on the part of the authors?

Questions/Discussion