Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

How to Review a Manuscript (By Elesvier)

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Conducting a
Manuscript Review
Elsevier Methodology
Compiled
By: Atiqa
Ijaz Khan
Friday, September 23, 2016
Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016
1
HOW TO CONDUCT A REVIEW?
 Before you accept or decline an invitation ...
Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016
2
4. If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, ra...
Publicité
Publicité
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 10 Publicité
Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Publicité

Similaire à How to Review a Manuscript (By Elesvier) (20)

Plus par Atiqa khan (20)

Publicité

Plus récents (20)

How to Review a Manuscript (By Elesvier)

  1. 1. Conducting a Manuscript Review Elsevier Methodology Compiled By: Atiqa Ijaz Khan Friday, September 23, 2016
  2. 2. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 1 HOW TO CONDUCT A REVIEW?  Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:  Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high quality review.  Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.  Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.  Finally: Educate yourself on the peer review process through the free Elsevier Publishing Campus  Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers. 1. Before you start 2. Your review report 3. Checklist 4. Your recommendation 5. Final decision BEFORE YOU START If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors. First read the article and then take a break from it, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, make sure you know what the journal is looking for, and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria you need to consider. YOUR REVIEW REPORT Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data. CHECKLIST 1. Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research. 2. Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base. 3. Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?
  3. 3. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 2 4. If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. Visit Elsevier’s Ethics site or the COPE Guidelines for more information. 5. Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Graphical Abstracts and/or Highlights, Method, statistical errors, Results, Conclusion/Discussion, language and References. YOUR RECOMMENDATION  When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:  Reject (explain reason in report)  Accept without revision  Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article) THE FINAL DECISION The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. Elsevier plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The online editorial system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this function. If this is not applicable for your journal, you can contact the editor to find out whether the article was accepted or rejected. WHAT IS PEER REVIEW? Reviewers play a central role in scholarly publishing. Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation. 1. Background 2. Peer review process 3. Types of peer review 4. Article Transfer Service 5. Interesting reads BACKGROUND Elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them. Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process.
  4. 4. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 3 In September 2009, Elsevier partnered with Sense About Science, an independent NGO working to promote the public's understanding of 'sound science', to launch the 2009 Peer Review Study – the largest survey ever international survey of authors and reviewers.  Visit the free Elsevier Publishing Campus to learn more about peer review. THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS TYPES OF PEER REVIEW Single Blind Review The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far.  Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers will not be influenced by the authors.  Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.
  5. 5. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 4  Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work. Double Blind Review Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous.  Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work.  Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.  Reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation. Open Review Reviewer and author are known to each other.  Some believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing.  Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. More transparent peer review Reviewers play a vital role in academic publishing, yet their contributions are often hidden. Three Elsevier journals now publish supplementary review files alongside the articles on Science Direct.  Acknowledges the important role of reviewers  Enriches published articles and improves the reading experience Article Transfer Service Elsevier authors can transfer their article submission from one journal to another for free if they are rejected, without the need to reformat, and often without needing further peer review.  Reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals.  Authors do not need to spend additional time reformatting their manuscript. Interesting reads 1. Chapter 2 of Academic and Professional Publishing, 2012, by Irene Hames in 2012, available on Science Direct. 2. "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Perspectives in Publishing No 2, August 2004, by Adrian Mulligan, available on Elsevier.com. 3. “The history of the peer-review process” Trends in Biotechnology, 2002, by Ray Spier, available on Science Direct. BECOMING A REVIEWER: HOW AND WHY Reviewing requires the investment of time and a certain skillset. Before you decide if you want to become a reviewer, we recommend that you read more about the peer review process and conducting
  6. 6. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 5 a review. You can also check out some of the training courses and webinars in the tools and resources section or at the free Elsevier Publishing Campus. 1. Do you want to be a reviewer? 2. What do reviewers do? 3. Why review? 4. Recognizing reviewers 5. Feedback program DO YOU WANT TO BE A REVIEWER? Typically, reviewers are invited to conduct a review by a journal or books editor. Editors usually select researchers that are experts in the same subject area as the paper. However, if you think you would be a good reviewer for a specific journal you can always contact one of the journal's editors. 1. Identify which journal you would like to review for using the Journal Finder tool on Elsevier.com 2. Visit the journal homepage and ‘view full editorial board’ 3. Contact the relevant editor(s) through the site and offer your reviewing services WHAT DO REVIEWERS DO, AND WHY? Reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals, based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the article and the research, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article.  Reviewing is a time-intensive process – writing a review report can be almost as much work as writing a manuscript! – but it is very worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community. Reviewers:  Ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.  Uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.  Fulfill a sense of obligation to the community and their own area of research.  Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.  Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewer, researchers ‘repay’ the same courtesy they receive as authors. WHY REVIEW? There are great benefits to becoming a reviewer. You can:  Establish your expertise in the field and expand your knowledge.  Improve your reputation and increase your exposure to key figures in the field.  Stay up to date with the latest literature, and have advanced access to research results.  Develop critical thinking skills essential to research.  Advance in your career – peer review is an essential role for researchers.
  7. 7. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 6 RECOGNIZING REVIEWERS Reviewers are important to us; Elsevier’s Reviewer Recognition Program aims to engage reviewers and reward them for the work they do. The Program features several projects and experiments. Free access All reviewers are entitled to:  Free 30-day access to Scopus  Free 30-day access to Science Direct  Free mentoring booklet: Charting a course for a successful research career, written by 30- year research veteran Prof. Alan Johnson Cross-Reviewing Cross-Reviewing (CR) is a new innovation that allows reviewers to see each other’s reports once all reports have been submitted. It provides reviewers with a short window of time in which to discuss the reports. During this time, they are given the opportunity to provide additional information or make further recommendations to the editor based on this discussion, before they make a final decision. Reviewer Recognition Platform Reviewers find reviewing an important and rewarding activity, but the work is almost invisible to the outside world, and hardly ever rewarded. The Reviewer Recognition Platform is designed to change that. The Platform offers reviewers a personalized profile page, documenting their reviewing history. If a reviewer has completed at least one review in two years, they become a ‘Recognized Reviewer’. ‘Outstanding Reviewer’ status is awarded to those who belong to the top 10th percentile in terms of the number of completed reviews for a specific journal in two years. Editors can also hand pick reviewers and award them with a ‘Certificate of Excellence’ and other perks. Reviewers can download review certificates, end of year review reports and electronic badges via the Platform. Reviewers can also volunteer to review for their favorite Elsevier journals. The Platform offers discounts for several Elsevier services, including Elsevier’s WebShop, which offers professional English language editing, Translation and Illustration services for researchers preparing their articles, and the Elsevier Book Store. Peer Review reports as articles The Publishing Peer Review Reports pilot publicly recognizes reviewers’ intellectual contribution to accepted articles through the official publication of their reports. Review reports are attributed a separate DOI and are published next to the accepted paper on Science Direct. Participating journals include:  Agriculture and Forest Meteorology  Annals of Medicine and Surgery  Engineering Fracture Mechanics  Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies  International Journal of Surgery REVIEWER FEEDBACK PROGRAM We regularly survey reviewers to get a better understanding of their needs and how we’re doing when it comes to meeting them. Findings from the Reviewer Feedback Program help us to improve the
  8. 8. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 7 reviewing experience. For example, 90% of reviewers said they would like to be able to see the final decision and other reviewers’ comments on a paper, so we added this functionality to EES. The Reviewer Feedback Program monitors Elsevier’s performance from the perspective of reviewers on Elsevier journals. We’ll ask you about various aspects of EES and other aspects of reviewing via an online survey. Areas of interaction and support are measured and reported regularly. Elsevier’s performance is benchmarked against that of other publishers. If you have been asked to complete our Reviewer Feedback Program online survey, we strongly recommend you complete it to make sure your voice is heard. TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR REVIEWERS Below you will find a set of tools and other resources that will help you in the reviewing process. 1. Latest Updates 2. Training 3. Getting started 4. Tools 5. Help LATEST UPDATES Reviewers’ Update brings you the latest news and views, and useful information about relevant Elsevier and industry developments. The comment function at the bottom of each article provides a valuable forum for you to share your views, stories or examples of best practice with your peers. Subscribe to our free Reviewers’ Update alerts TRAINING AND WORKSHOPS  Peer review training courses and online lectures on the Elsevier Publishing Campus.  Reviewer Workshops: to organize a workshop about peer review at your institute or conference, contact publishingcampus@elsevier.com  Elsevier Editorial System (EES) Interactive Tutorials/EVISE®: learn more about how to work with the system. GETTING STARTED To locate the homepage of the journal you have been invited to review for, you can use the Journal Finder tool. You are notified by email when you are invited to review a submission for a journal. If you agree to review, you will receive further emails with information including the journal title and a link to its online editorial site.
  9. 9. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 8 If you do not remember for which journal you have been invited to review, please contact Customer Support with your name and email address. TOOLS Online tools  Policies: You can access all of Elsevier’s policies online.  Open access: All open access information is available on our open science pages.  Reviewer research tools: all Elsevier reviewers can benefit from a seamless integration between Scopus, Science Direct and EES/EVISE® to assist them in the peer review process, with 30 days of free access to Scopus and Science Direct.  Elsevier Editorial System (EES) is an online system to help authors, editors and reviewers throughout the submission, peer review and editorial process.  EVISE® is our new online submission and editorial system.  Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings.  Science Direct is a leading full-text scientific database offering journal articles and book chapters from nearly 2,500 journals and 26,000 books. Publications  Charting a course for a successful research career – Written by 30-year research veteran Prof. Alan Johnson, this publication provides a detailed map of the important milestones a researcher should reach along the path to a successful research career.  Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts – a booklet about peer review by Sense About Science.  Guidelines on roles and responsibilities in peer review – a publication by the Council of Science Editors (CSE). NEED HELP? Retrieving a username and password To retrieve your username and password for reviewing on the online editorial system, you can click the ‘Submit Your Paper’ link on the journal’s homepage and then follow the forgotten password link on the log-in screen. To locate the homepage of the journal you have been invited to review for, you can use the Journal Finder tool. Contact us 1. Content: Contact the journal editor or editorial office with questions about the content of an article. 2. Technical issues: Contact the reviewers’ helpdesk for technical issues relating to the online system: * Email support@elsevier.com * The Americas: +1 888 834 7287 (toll free for US & Canadian customers) * Asia + Pacific: + 81 3 5561 5032 * Europe & all other areas: +44 1865 84 3577
  10. 10. Conducting a Manuscript Review September 23, 2016 9 3. Access for reviewers: For any questions related to the EES/Scopus integration, please visit our support and self help site, or contact: * For the Americas: +1 888 834 7287 (toll-free for US & Canadian callers) * For Asia & Pacific: +81 3 5561 5032 * For Europe & Rest of the World: +353 61 709190 * Fax: +353 61 709 228 COURTESY TO: 1. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-conduct-a-review 2. https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/69/Colleges/College-of-Skills-Training/Peer- review.html?PAGE_NR=69 3. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers 4. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review 5. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/becoming-a-reviewer-how-and-why 6. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/tools-and-resources-for-reviewers

×