Rejected but Publishable: Transferring Manuscripts from One Addiction Journal to Another Adam J. Gordon, MD MPH FACP DFASAM Editor in Chief – Substance Abuse journal 2018 ISAJE (#ISAJE 2018 or #ISAJE) Prague, Czechoslovakia Sept 30, 2018 Dr. Gordon has no fiduciary or other conflicts to disclose

OUTLINE Genesis and Rationale Prior Proposal: “The Addiction Journal Peer Review Consortium” Modifications/Pilot Going forward

OUTLINE Genesis and Rationale Prior Proposal: “The Addiction Journal Peer Review Consortium” Modifications/Pilot Going forward

Genesis: Authors’ Perspectives Main goal is to get research findings published quickly Getting research paper published is often a time intensive process Submission Peer Review Editorial Board decisions Papers often go under several peer review cycles at different journals Authors often “reach high” to publish their work in the highest quality journal The peer review process can take time The peer review/editorial/journal process can be frustrating

Genesis: Editors’ Perspectives Main goal is to publish high quality work Obtaining quality peer reviews often takes time It is unknown how a paper has evolved over time perhaps authors have taken approaches based on prior peer review Soliciting and obtaining external peer reviews takes time Peer review takes time The process can be frustrating

Current practice - When rejecting an article, some Editors/journals offer to: Forward the paper to another journal (without reviews) Forward the paper to another journal (with reviews) Indicate the paper could be accepted in another journal Indicate the paper could be accepted online format (others) Transfer of manuscripts: Easiest within the publishing house Easier within the same management system (e.g., scholar one) Easier with the same formatting requirements Easier with author and Editor attention to process

Current experiences? (As authors, peers) DISCUSSION Current experiences? (As authors, peers)

OUTLINE Genesis and Rationale Prior Proposal: “The Addiction Journal Peer Review Consortium” Modifications/Pilot Going forward

“Addiction Journal Peer Review Consortium” Prior Report to ISAJE - Proposed An alliance of “addiction” journals that have agreed to accept manuscript reviews from other ISAJE member journals “of the consortium” Goals: Support efficient and thorough peer review of original research Reduce delay in possible publication Make the process more efficient by saving the scarce resource of reviewers’ time

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium Model Consortium based on 2008 model of neuroscience journals “The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium” Ongoing alliance of neuroscience journals that have agreed to accept manuscript review from other members of the consortium Similar goals 2008, evaluated in 2011, agreed to continue indefinitely Journals may join or leave at any time

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS Would permit authors whose papers are not accepted for publication by one member journal of the AJC and who wish to submit their manuscript to a second participating journal to request that this previous set of reviews be forwarded to another journal Advantage: Reduce the number of times a manuscript must be reviewed Reduce burden on reviewers Speed up publication time

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS The Editor of an ISAJE member journal must initiate the process to join the AJC Notifying Editorial Board Notifying publisher Notifying owner

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS “The weeds” A reject letter of the source journal would an option for the corresponding author authorizing the rejecting Editor to share with the AJC: the manuscript the decision letter The reviews Ideally: A manuscript arrives with reviews that suggest that the manuscript received acceptable rating in the areas related to methods, results, analyses, and significance But, was deemed not appropriate in the declining journal

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS “The weeds” Once permission is granted to share, AJC member journals would be notified that a manuscript is available (email?) and provided: Names of authors Manuscript Title Abstract (maybe) reviews? Anonymous or Named. AJC Editors would have 1-2 weeks to decide to consider the manuscript If so, would notify the referring editor Manuscript would be withdrawn from the “pool”

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS “The weeds” The Receiving Editor would manage the manuscript Logging the manuscript into the Journals system Requesting additional reviews if necessary (if necessary) Asking the author to revise the manuscript to the reviewers comments (if necessary) Revising the manuscript to fit the page length and format requirement If the authors have made revisions and the manuscript is still rejected, the recipient Editor could still reinsert the manuscript into the “pool”.

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS “The weeds” Since most journals operate under online platforms It would be the responsibility of each journal that joins the AJC to find its own methods for dealing with the forwarded reviews and the background material Could also use the existing transfer process of existing management platform systems (e.g., Scholar One, Editorial Manager) to transfer to another journal within the same publisher (or across publishers)

“Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS “The weeds” Authors would be notified that their paper will be available to the member journals of the AJC Asked to indicate the priority of the journals that they would like to be considered by Once notified by an AJC journal, they would have the right to decline the referral Their work would then be taken out of the pool If no Editor chooses to consider the manuscript Author would be notified Author free to submit to another journal (within or outside the AJC)

“Addiction Journal Consortium” THOUGHTS? DISCUSSION “Addiction Journal Consortium” THOUGHTS?

OUTLINE Genesis and Rationale Prior Proposal: “The Addiction Journal Peer Review Consortium” Modifications/Pilot Going forward

AJC “Light” SAj Editor perspective AJC would be more work Require time/effort to account Email/sharepoint/drop box articles Get reviews sent Get papers sent Get author agreements Be attentive to the process What is the main thing that would help? Getting quality reviews Expedite the process internally

SAj Pilot: 2018 #1 Asked Associate Editors to inform colleagues/peers to potential authors: To forward prior reviews of rejected manuscripts In the cover letter Reviewers were anonymous Could forward ALL the prior reviews (even from multiple journals) (no quality control about whether some aspects of the reviews were not forwarded) To forward responses to those reviews Authors should have responded to those reviews in the cover letter Authors should have provided a ”clean copy” and “tracked changes” copy upon submission

SAj Pilot: 2018 #1 Authors uploaded all material in the management system Editor in Chief decides merits Reject or Review Inquire to an Associate Editor to review Associate Editor recommendation: Reject Send out for SAj external review (normal process) Recommend a Revision without external peer review Accept

SAj Pilot: 2018 #1 RESULTS Seemed simple and painless Several papers (n=5) went through this process All were asked to Revise and Resubmit from Associate Editor Seemed simple and painless Did not require additional burdens for the Editorial Team Did not require interaction with other journals

SAj Pilot: 2018 #2 We did a similar process for a series of papers regarding Quality Metrics regarding opioid use disorder treatment Special solicitation from the NIH NIDA Clinical Trials Network (CTN) “we want to get these series of articles reviewed and published quickly” 8 papers that had been reviewed by the NIDA CTN Publications Committee Reviews/responses Recognition that there may be a bias from the Publication Committee reviewers to get this work published

SAj Pilot: 2018 #2 All reviewed by Editor in Chief and Associate Editor Most (but not all) were asked to revise and resubmit “These are exceptional papers” “I appreciated having the prior reviews and the responses” Articles submitted this summer all will be published this year

PILOT DISCUSSION AND CONCERNS

OUTLINE Genesis and Rationale Prior Proposal: “The Addiction Journal Peer Review Consortium” Modifications/Pilot Going forward

Addiction Journal Consortium Proposed next steps Compile a list of journal editors/journals who want to be in the AJC Develop criteria for sending a paper into the referral pool Draft a cover letter to be addressed to authors describing the AJC Description of AJC journals Decide whether authors or editors choose which journal to send rejected papers to Solicit 5-6 journals to pilot this out Report back to ISAJE

Addiction Journal Consortium Proposed next steps Compile a list of journal editors/journals who want to be in the AJC Develop criteria for sending a paper into the referral pool Draft a cover letter to be addressed to authors describing the AJC Description of AJC journals Decide whether authors or editors choose which journal to send rejected papers to Solicit 5-6 journals to pilot this out Report back to ISAJE (Consider standardizing a process similar to SAj Pilot)

DISCUSSION