1. A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T E T Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Reviewing scientific papers Jan Tind Sørensen Dept. of Animal Health, Welfare and Nutrition

2. First encounter- you will never forget! Major revision !!

3. Confession : I referee papers for scientific journals Animal Journal of Dairy Science Veterinary Research Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Animal Research Actabiotheoretica Livestock Science Agricultural Systems Computers and Electronics in Agriculture Animal Welfare

4. I do it – you do it! Each paper submitted results in two referee reports Only half of the papers submitted will be printed At least four referee reports for each paper printed

5. Reviewing scientific papers Is it a big responsibility ? Yes! Is it rewording? No! Why do it? Many don’t

6. How do you learn to be a good reviewer of scientific papers? You take a course? No You learn from a senior referee? Rarely It is learning by doing? Yes and alone

7. Some subjective speculations I Different from being a co-author  Do not rewrite the paper  If you do not understand the paper reject it  Papers without a purpose is difficult  Language: It is not your paper

8. Some subjective speculations II You are a referee: Please explain your verdict

9. Some subjective speculations III Different from being a supervisor – but some advise is OK  Introduction: Missing papers  Material & Methods:  Missing information can be critical  Revised analysis-very unpopular  Results: Less results please  Discussion: Only you own results

10. How mush time should you use on this blood, sweat and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? Two hours? 15 minuttes?

11. How mush time should you use on this blood, swet and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? May be Two hours? 15 minuttes?

12. How mush time should you use on this blood, swet and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? Two hours? Sounds reasonable 15 minuttes?

13. How mush time should you use on this blood, swet and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? Two hours? 15 min? Could be enough for a rejection

14. Reviewing scientific papers: Conclusion  Be positive: Like being a blood donor  We need courses on being a reviewer  The review job is a very important duty in science and should be given credit as such