1. 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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

9. “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

10. 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

11. “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

12. “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

13. “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

14. “Addiction Journal Consortium” METHODS “The weeds”
Once permission is granted to share, AJC member journals would be notified that a manuscript is available ( ?) 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”

15. “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”.

16. “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)

17. “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)

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

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

20. AJC “Light” SAj Editor perspective
AJC would be more work
Require time/effort to account
/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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. PILOT DISCUSSION AND CONCERNS

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

29. 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

30. 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)

31. DISCUSSION