Manuscript Rejected! To revise or not to revise?? A case study of how to analyze, evaluate and use reviewer comments.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Authorship APS Professional Skills Course:

Advertisements

Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers APS Professional Skills Course: Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals.

Electronic Portfolios, A Perfect Solution to Assessment in an Online English Composition Course Dr. Mary Jane Clerkin Berkeley College.

Tips for Publishing Qualitative Research Sandra Mathison University of British Columbia Editor-in-Chief, New Directions for Evaluation.

EVALUATING FACULTY Lydia Fox, University of the Pacific Jon Harbor, Purdue University.

Submission Process. Overview Preparing for submission The submission process The review process.

Approaches to Publish rather than Perish: Some Lessons from the School of Hard Knocks Dr. John Loomis, Professor Dept. of Ag & Resource Economics Colorado.

GETTING PUBLISHED Chapter 18.

What is Science anyway.

Publishing Journal Articles Simon Hix Prof. of European & Comparative Politics LSE Government Department My experience How journals work Choosing a journal.

Improving Learning, Persistence, and Transparency by Writing for the NASPA Journal Dr. Cary Anderson, Editor, NASPA Journal Kiersten Feeney, Editorial.

EARCOS Teachers’ Conference March 2012 Donna Kalmbach Phillips, Ph.D. Pacific University, OR USA.

An introduction to peer review Research Student Generic Skills Training Programme, College of Social Sciences, November 2010 Jo Brewis, School of Management.

HOW TO RESPOND TO REVISIONS Putting yourself in the editor’s shoes Dr Melissa Parris School of Management & Marketing Editor-in-Chief, Employee Responsibilities.

Linus U. Opara Office of the Assistant Dean for Postgraduate Studies & Research College of Agricultural & Marine Sciences Sultan Qaboos University Beyond.

Reading the Literature

How to Publish in an International Journal Joel Huber Kunming University of Science and Technology 20 September 2009.

Publishing Research Papers Charles E. Dunlap, Ph.D. U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation Arlington, Virginia

Manuscript Writing and the Peer-Review Process

SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE WRITING Professor Charles O. Uwadia At the Conference.

RESEARCH STUDENTS AS AUTHORS (©29:5:15) Professor Peter Gilroy

Tips for writing well and getting your work published Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD McGill University, Montreal Editorial board member: Lancet Infect Dis PLoS.

Publishing Reports of STEM Research—Plus Some Tips on Writing Grant Proposals! Guidelines for Getting Published or Funded James A. Shymansky E. Desmond.

© L.A.C.E. Research Group, 2003 University of Cadiz Eudoxos Project Teaching Science with a Robotic Telescope EVALUATION OF THE EUDOXOS PROJECT The evaluation.

Research Methods Key Points What is empirical research? What is the scientific method? How do psychologists conduct research? What are some important.

Maricopa Priorities Status Update Fall Maricopa Priorities Basics What it isWhat it’s not A regular, cyclical, bottom-up process to: ▫Evaluate everything.

If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.

Getting published : how to enhance your chances of publishing in international journals PhD-school Faculty of Social Sciences, 1 december 2008 Wouter Vandenabeele.

Presented at Innovations, March 6, 2012 How to Get your Idea Published Dr. Deborah L. Floyd Editor-in-Chief, Community College Journal of Research & Practice,

Burton Style Analysis Essay: Plan, Outline, & Draft Plan, outline, and draft your essay (see rubric) Remember the prompt: What have you learned about style.

RESPONDING TO REVIEWER COMMENTS Irwan Supriyanto Bagian Ilmu Kedokteran Jiwa Fakultas Kedokteran UGM 2014.

Submitting Manuscripts to Journals: An Editor’s Perspective Michael K. Lindell Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center Texas A&M University.

Publishing in English Language Social Science Journals Daniel T. Lichter Cornell University November 19, 2009.

Software Engineering Experimentation Rules for Reviewing Papers Jeff Offutt See my editorials 17(3) and 17(4) in STVR

Getting Your Research Published Dr. Sri Talluri Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management SEMS Webinar- May 9, 2012.

THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. Chapter Three: The Scientific Process  3.1 Inquiry and the Scientific Method  3.2 Experiments and Variables  3.3 The Nature.

Reviewing Papers© Dr. Ayman Abdel-Hamid, CS5014, Fall CS5014 Research Methods in CS Dr. Ayman Abdel-Hamid Computer Science Department Virginia Tech.

How should we select our KDC groups?. The Overview What groups are there? What is involved in being in each group? What role do the individual members.

Publications Dr Sarah Wendt. Context PhD conferred Oct 2005, fulltime lecturer in 2006 at UniSA (40/40/20). Promoted to Senior Lecturer (2010). Social.

Authorship Criteria; Updated Version 2013 By: Behrooz Astaneh MD Founder and Head, Medical Journalism Department Visiting Editor, BMJ COPE Council Member.

1 Identify Preferred Alternative and Finalize Plan Planning Steps 7 & 8.

Dealing with Reviews. Rejection hurts, but is it fatal?

April, 2012 How to publish your college’s big ideas and innovations Dr. Deborah L. Floyd Editor-in-Chief, Community College Journal of Research & Practice,

How to publish paper in journal. Step 1.Familiarize yourself with potential publications.

Technical Writing: An Editor’s Perspective Michael K. Lindell Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center Texas A&M University.

Scientific Peer Review Yixin Chen, Associate Professor Computer & Information Science University of Mississippi April 9, 2013.

Thank You for Serving as a Reviewer for Obstetrics & Gynecology 2010 Year in Review James R. Scott, MD, Editor-in-Chief John T. Queenan, MD, Deputy Editor.

Analysis of Data and Conclusion. Data Analysis Review your data. Try to look at the results of your experiment with a critical eye. Ask yourself these.

Sept 17, 2007C.Watters 1 Reviewing Published Articles.

Writing for medical journals 10 points. 1. Know your topic Keep up to date Frame your research in a way that contributes to current debate.

How to Get Published: Surviving in the Academic World Stephen E. Condrey, Ph.D. Vice President, American Society for Public Administration Editor-in-Chief,

Copyright © Springer Publishing Company, LLC. All Rights Reserved. BECOMING A SCHOLAR IN NURSING EDUCATION – Chapter 16 –

Scientific Literature and Communication Unit 3- Investigative Biology b) Scientific literature and communication.

Building an Outstanding Student Research Journal in the IR Stephanie Davis-Kahl, Scholarly Communications Librarian Michael Seeborg, Professor of Economics.

Publishing a paper.

Publishing without tears.

The Annotated Bibliography

Decoupling peer review and editorial selection

IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation Status Report

Peer Reviews Tips for the Reviewer.

BHS Methods in Behavioral Sciences I

THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

Four Column Journal QAP.

Comment on Students’ Stories, And A Guide to Literary Criticism

Advice on getting published

Business The test… The peer reviews….

Strategi Memperbaiki dan Menyiapkan Naskah (Manuscript) Hasil Review

Ins and Outs of Publishing:

Evaluation Research Defined as the process of making judgments about the merits, value, or worth of any component of education. (e.g. best text books to.

Presentation transcript:

Manuscript Rejected! To revise or not to revise?? A case study of how to analyze, evaluate and use reviewer comments.

James A. Shymansky E. Desmond Lee Professor of Science Education University of Missouri-- St. Louis

Things to think about in making the decision

Be objective! Decision to revise should be based on analysis and evaluation of the reviews not an emotional reaction to them. Recommend that you create your own rating/response system for dealing with the reviewer comments.

What to consider seriously Everything! But specifically: Criticisms specific to text Suggestions to improve text Comments consistent across reviews

What to consider less so Criticisms that contradict Criticisms that reflect a bias Reviews that are hastily done

My rating criteria Is the comment valid/reasonable? Can I make the change suggested? Should I make the change suggested? If not, what should I do about it?

We all get rejected! Let’s analyze and evaluate the reviews of a manuscript that your two humble conference presenters submitted with two coauthors and had rejected! To revise or not to revise--that is the question!!

Final Considerations Is the manuscript salvageable? Can reported data be re-analyzed? Are there other data to consider? Can/should other data be collected? Could a new co-author make a difference? Should another journal be considered? Persevere; don’t give up!!