1. BUILDING “JOURNAL KARMA”: Tips for reviewing manuscripts to uphold integrity of peer review process and enhance the quality of paper
Bruce Lubotsky Levin, DrPH, MPH
Associate Professor & Head
Behavioral Health Concentration
Dept. of Community & Family Health and
Editor-In-Chief, Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
University of South Florida
8/18/2016

2. Learning Objectives
Understand the life cycle of a manuscript in peer review.
Define the peer review process.
List the duties, activities, and responsibilities of journal manuscript reviewers.
Understand the implications of reviewing manuscripts for writing manuscripts

3. AUTHOR PERSPECTIVE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESS

4. LIFE CYCLE OF A MANUSCRIPT
Author
Submission
Editorial Processing
Blind Peer Review
Editorial Decision
Revise, Reject, or Publish

5. PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW Determine originality of the work
Determine validity & importance of the findings
Improve quality of published paper
Detect plagiarism or fraud
Select the best manuscripts for a journal
Each manuscript undergoes at least two reviews

6. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
1731 Society of Edinburgh, G.B.
Consensus Building Process
Build Specific Knowledge Base
Publish best quality papers
Original Contributions: Detect plagiarism or fraud
Internal, External, Blind Reviews

7. WHO SHOULD REVIEW?

8. WHAT DO EDITORS LOOK FOR IN REVIEWERS?
Expertise in one or more areas of paper
Objectivity
No conflicts of interest
Good judgment
Think clearly & logically
Write good critiques
Accurate
Readable
Helpful to editors and authors
Timely

9. THE EDITOR’S IDEAL REVIEWER
Is a researcher who is working in the same discipline as the subject of the paper, yet is not in direct competition with the authors
Will understand the hypotheses underlying the work
Will be familiar with the model systems & methods used
Will be able to judge the quality of the data & analyses and assess the validity of the conclusions
Will be able to assess the significance of the work

10. DETERMINE WHETHER TO REVIEW
Adequate Time to Review
Sufficient Expertise
Focus Area Literature
Methodology including statistical/qualitative
Conflict of Interest
Familiar with Journal & Referencing Style
Familiar with Journal Readers

11. Before You Start… Do I… Have the expertise?
Should I accept this review invitation?
Have the expertise?
Do I…
Have the time to complete a thoughtful review?

12. WHAT IS “EXPERTISE” AND DO I HAVE IT?
Ideal reviewers seldom exist
Editors often send papers to multiple reviewers, with different areas of expertise and different perspectives
Young reviewers tend to underestimate their expertise
If in doubt, contact the editor and discuss your concerns

14. REVIEWER DUTIES Provide critical assessment of research
Maintain confidentiality
Avoid conflicts of interest
Accept reviews only in area(s) of expertise
Agree to review only if deadline can be met
Report suspected plagiarism, fraud or ethical concerns to Editor
Write review in a collegial, constructive manner

15. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN REVIEWING
By agreeing to review a paper, the reviewer becomes a consultant to the journal and to adhere to the journal’s policies and guidelines for the review of manuscripts.
The reviewer agrees to provide a review that meets the needs and standards of the journal within the time specified.
The reviewer must be able to judge fairly and objectively the quality and significance of the work under review.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Financial conflicts of interest:
Employment, Consulting, Stock/equity
Patent and license agreements
Is the work too close to your own?

17. EVALUATE MANUSCRIPT Science Manuscript Relevant topic High readability
Clearly stated objectives
Appropriate methodology
Good data analysis
Reasonable conclusions
High readability
Good structure
Logical flow
Appropriate & current references

18. Reviewer Comments Comments to Author(s) Comments to the Editor
Provide summary of your decision & general comments
Is the paper suitable to journal?
Any major problems?
Accept/revise/reject?
Summarize study in one paragraph
Clear objectives?
Methods reasonable?
Data analyses & results
Study limitations presented
Conclusions/Implications important?

19. Reviewer Comments (cont.)
FEEDBACK
Avoid…
Be negative, demeaning, or sarcastic
Include personal comments
Include identifying information
Try to change the manuscript too much
Insufficient data
Inappropriate method
Old database
Over-interpretation of results
References old
Problems with writing style

20. Manuscript information
SAMPLE REVIEWER FORM
Manuscript information
Scoring card
Comments to editor
Comments to author

21. ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS REVISE & DO NOT RE-REVIEW
Decision of the Editor
SELECT ONE
ACCEPT AS IS
Indicates the manuscript can be published without any corrections or revisions.
Rarely, if ever, the first decision rendered.
ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS
Indicates the manuscript can be published with small corrections.
Sometimes this is an editor-only decision; a peer reviewer would select “revise” in this case.
REVISE & RE-REVIEW
Indicates the manuscript needs re-writing or clarification.
Indicates you would like to review the manuscript after revisions.
REVISE & DO NOT RE-REVIEW
Indicates the manuscript may only need minor revisions to be published or that you are unable/unwilling to review again.
REJECT
Indicates the manuscript will not be considered for publication.
Often, editors will include peer review notes to strengthen the manuscript for- re-submission at another journal.

22. SUMMARY OF A GOOD REVIEWER
Provides a thorough and comprehensive review
Submits review on time
Provides specific and well-founded comments to authors
Gives constructive criticism and honest evaluation
Demonstrates objectivity
Provides a clear recommendations to the editor

23. FINALLY, HOW WAS THE REVIEW?
Ask the Editor
Review a manuscript with your academic advisor
Join/start a journal club in the COPH, MCH, HE, or Behavioral Health student organization

24. HOW DOES PEER-REVIEW HELP ME?
To keep up with the latest research
Builds the reviewers’ professional network
Increases reviewers’ visibility

25. IMPLICATIONS FOR WRITING MANUSCRIPTS
Target Journals and readership
Learn referencing styles
Differentiate regular articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, and Policy Briefs
Recognize good writing, organized paper, and flow
Familiar with revision process – address comments of reviewers
Ethical Considerations

26. REFERENCES
Rockwell S. Ethics of peer review: A guide for manuscript reviewers – Overview [Presentation]. Office of Research Integrity, Yale University School of Medicine. Available online at Accessed on August 15, 2016.
Khoo T. Professionally judgmental [Blog post]. The Research Whisperer. Available online at judgemental/. Accessed on August 15, 2016.
Fox J. Advice: How to review a manuscript for a journal [Blog post]. Available online at manuscript-for-a-journal/. Accessed on August 15, 2016.
Khoo T. Build your journal karma [Blog post]. Available online at Accessed on August 15, 2016.
Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2011;42:1-13

27. Then it is time to review for the JBHS&R!
Any Questions?
Then it is time to review for the JBHS&R!