How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022
The review process
The review process (How to deal with editors)
Publishing the paper
You, as an author, should have some idea of the whys and wherefores of the review process. Therefore, we will describe the policies and procedures that are typical in most editorial offices. If you understand (and perhaps even appreciate) some of the reasons for the editorial decisions that are made, perhaps you can facilitate publication of your papers simply by knowing how to deal with editors.
When your manuscript arrives at the journal’s editorial office, the editor (or the managing editor, if the journal has one) makes several preliminary decisions. First, is the manuscript concerned with a subject area within the scope of the journal? If it clearly is not, the manuscript is immediately returned to the submitting author, along with a short statement of the reason for the action. Seldom would an author be able to challenge such a decision successfully, and it is usually pointless to try. It is an important part of the editor’s job to define the scope of the journal, and editors seldom take kindly to suggestions by authors, no matter how politely the comments are phrased, that the editor is somehow incapable of defining the basic character of their journal. Remember, however, that such a decision does not constitute rejection of your data or conclusions. Your course of action is obvious: Try another journal.
Second, if the subject of the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, is the manuscript itself in suitable form for consideration? Is the manuscript complete, with no sections, tables, or figures missing? Is the manuscript in the editorial style of the journal, at least as to the basics? If the answer to either of the preceding questions is no, the manuscript may be immediately returned to the author, or at least the review will be delayed while the deficiencies are rectified. Most journal editors will not waste the time of their valued peer reviewers by sending poorly prepared manuscripts to them for review.
Only after these two preconditions (a proper manuscript on a proper subject) have been met is the editor ready to consider the manuscript for publication.
At this point, the editor must perform two very important functions. First, the basic housekeeping must be done. That is, careful records should be established so that the manuscript can be followed throughout the review process and (if the manuscript is accepted) the publication process. If the journal has a managing editor, as most large ones do, this activity is normally a part of their assignment. It is important that this work be done accurately, so that the whereabouts of manuscripts are known at all times. It is also important that the system include a number of built-in signaling devices so the inevitable delays in reviewing and other problems can promptly be brought to the attention of the editor or managing editor. The electronic systems that many journals use for manuscript submission and tracking facilitate this work.
Second, the editor must decide whether the paper will be peer reviewed (evaluated by other experts in the same research field) and, if so, choose peer reviewers. At many journals, all manuscripts reaching this stage are sent for peer review. At some journals—especially the larger and more competitive ones, which receive very many papers—the editors decide which manuscripts will be peer reviewed. If the editors know they would not publish the paper, for example because the research is too weak or the topic is too narrow, they return the paper to the author without peer review. Such return generally happens quickly; thus, the author does not waste weeks or more awaiting the unfavorable decision, as could well occur if the paper went for peer review. If you receive a rapid rejection—sometimes known as a “desk rejection” or “desk reject”—realize that you are not alone, and submit your paper to another, perhaps more specialized journal. Of course, carefully consult the new journal’s instructions to authors, and revise your manuscript accordingly before submitting it.
If the paper will be sent for peer review, the editor or editors must choose the peer reviewers (also known as referees). Commonly, two or three reviewers are selected for each manuscript; in some fields, however, more reviewers sometimes are used, especially for interdisciplinary papers, and in some fields, the use of a single reviewer is the norm. The reviewers must be peers of the author—that is, fellow experts—or their recommendations will be of little value.
Frequently, the editor starts with the editorial board of the journal. Who on the board has the appropriate subject expertise to evaluate a particular manuscript? Often, because of the highly specialized character of modern science, only one member (or no member) of the board has the requisite familiarity with the subject of a particular manuscript. The editor must then obtain one or more reviews from nonboard members, often called ad hoc reviewers or editorial consultants. (Also, some journals depend entirely on ad hoc reviewers.) Sometimes the editor must make many inquiries before appropriate reviewers for a given manuscript are identified.
How do journals choose ad hoc reviewers? Often, the editors or editorial board members know suitable candidates. Some journals keep databases of researchers who have served as reviewers or could do so; as well as noting areas of expertise, such databases sometimes include information on the promptness and quality of reviews received from each person. Editors often invite authors of works cited in the manuscript to serve as reviewers. They also search the literature on the topic to identify appropriate candidates. As discussed in chapter 20, some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers—and let them list people they consider unsuited to serve as peer reviewers for such reasons as conflicts of interest. (Editors get suspicious, though, when authors include in the latter list most of the researchers in their fields!) Also, when researchers who are invited to review a paper are not available, they typically are asked to identify others who are qualified to do so. (And if you have a paper accepted by a journal, you may be added to its pool of potential reviewers.)
Does the peer review system work? According to Bishop (1984, p. 45), “The answer to this question is a resounding, Yes! All editors, and most authors, will affirm that there is hardly a paper published that has not been improved, often substantially, by the revisions suggested by referees.” Research (for example, Goodman et al. 1994) supports the conclusion that peer review and editing improve manuscripts.
Most journals in the sciences use anonymous reviewers. Some, however, disclose the names of reviewers or give reviewers the option of revealing their identities. A few journals make the authors anonymous by deleting their names from the copies of manuscripts sent to reviewers.
If the reviewers have been chosen wisely, their reviews will soundly identify strengths and limitations of the paper and will contain substantial constructive feedback. Thus, the editor will be in a good position to arrive at a decision regarding publication of the paper. Also, whether the paper is accepted or not, the author will receive the reviewers’ suggestions and thus can use them to improve the paper.
Peer review has been a subject of considerable research and reflection, and a number of international congresses have focused on the topic. Resources for those interested in peer review include books on the subject (Godlee and Jefferson 2003; Lock 1985) and the website of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (peerreviewcongress.org).