Dealing with reviewer comments Fi Macnab Executive Publisher f.macnab@Elsevier.com

What is peer review’s role in the overall process? For nearly 400 years, peer review has placed the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing Reviewers make the editorial process work by examining and commenting on manuscripts Peer review—whatever form it takes—acts as a control on scientific communication Reviewers are the backbone of the whole process Fosters debate within the field Image: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (2018, January 14). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:13, January 23, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society&oldid=820468163

Purpose of peer review To improve quality of the published paper Ensure previous work is acknowledged Frequently detects fraud and plagiarism But authors are responsible for adhering to ethical procedures and standards Determine the importance of findings Assess the originality and significance of the work Identify mistakes in the methodology, lack of originality, conclusions not supported by results Highlight omissions in the reference list and any ethics concerns

Why do reviewers review? Sense of “duty” to the field “Sharing economy” of reviewers as authors (and vice versa) Enjoy reviewing Awareness of new research and developments at an early stage Career development Help with own research or new ideas Association with journal, editor or scholarly society

The main forms of peer review Single or double blind peer review Varies massively across disciplines Single most common Annals of African Surgery uses double-blind “Sound science” peer review Any paper reporting original & technically sound results of primary research, which adheres to accepted ethical and scientific publishing standards, will be published regardless of its perceived impact. PLOS One, Heliyon, Frontiers, etc. Pre-publication or post-publication Pre-pub: vast, vast majority Post-pub: e.g. F1000, Copernicus

Expectation of peer reviewers State any potential conflicts of interest Keep comments confidential Be objective Be constructive Be timely

“Typical” peer-review process Author submits article to journal Journal Editor screens paper Rejected after screening Reviewer Reviewer Rejected Makes revisions Editor assessment of reviews Accepted no revisions required

Getting your paper back Rejected without review (desk reject) – approx. 35% Accept Minor revision Major revision Revise and Resubmit Reject after review Image: Nick Kim - http://www.lab-initio.com/

First steps Stay calm Read the comments Re-read the comments Once you get your paper back….. Stay calm Read the comments Re-read the comments Get someone else to read the comments Take a break Make a table that details every comment and the changes required

Common issues raised by reviewers Research not original, insightful, definitive Inappropriate design/methods, including statistical Ethical concerns Failure to comprehensively review up-to-date literature in Introduction and Discussion Over-reliance on older references or references from one research group

Peer review—responding to reviewers’ comments An opportunity, not a criticism Chance to make a better paper—be conscientious and cooperative Respond promptly Ask the editor if you need more time Provide point-by-point list of How each comment was addressed; justification for not addressing any comments Respond to ALL editorial points—e.g., format, style, author statements

Resubmit or go elsewhere? Never submit the same version of the article elsewhere Always use the reviewers comments

Thank you and Good Luck