How to Write a Scientific Article Lecture 6 Francois Grey

Tsinghua Workshop on
How to Write
a Scientific Article
Lecture 6
Francois Grey
November 2008
Conclusions of Lecture 5
Choose the journal early, and consider factors like speed of
publication and impact factor. A new class of high impact
journals has emerged for physics and nanotech since 2001.
Note that reviews also have a high impact factor.
Familiarize yourself with the (online) submission procedure
of the most likely journal(s) for your. This may affect many
practical decisions you make (size, number of figures etc.)
Make sure you understand the copyright form (waiver) that
you fill out, and its consequences for subsequent use of your
own material. Consider open access journals where
appropriate.
Overview of the Course
Eight lectures + homework
1) Historical Context
2) Contemporary Context
3) Planning Your Article
4) Writing Your Article
5) Submitting Your Article
6) The Referee Process
7) Disseminating Your Article
8) Conclusions
Lecture 6: The referee process
•
•
•
•
•
Origins of peer review
Roles of editors and reviewers
How it works
How to react
Proofing and reprints
Origins of peer review
•
•
•
Peer = equal (not your superior)
Referee = a person you ask about something (refer something to)
Reviewer = look at again
•
1665: Royal Society starts Philosophical Transactions. Editor is sole responsible.
Objective is to document results for those not present at Society meeting.
•
1752: Royal Society adopts review process, uses select members.
•
19th century: Academies institute committees to review incoming manuscripts .
•
1890s: carbon paper enables rapid replication for multiple reviews.
•
20th century: peer review extends outside membership academies, societies
.(Einstein 1905 papers reviewed by editors only!)
Role of editors and reviewers
•
The Editor remains sole responsible for decision to publish, referees
provide expert opinions which the editor uses to make his decision.
•
The Managing Editor: full-time professional, deals with technical
issues.
•
Scientific Editors: scientist (volunteer), deals with content issues. Your
main contact person during peer review process.
•
Editorial Boards: first line of referees. They also select other referees.
•
Referees/reviewers/editorial consultants: Experts in your field.
•
Manuscript editor/copy editor: deals with technical and style
improvements to accepted articles.
How it works
Editor
reviews
manuscript
How it works
Editor reviews
referee reports,
makes decision
Modify: may
require major
changes (<50%)
Final acceptance rate:
PRL <35%
Nature <10%
How to react
What to do if you are asked to modify:
• Strategic decision: do you want to make the changes proposed? Are you able
to do so in the time available?
• Tactical decision: Which changes can you argue effectively against? How is the
editor likely to view your arguments?
What to do if rejected (unacceptable in present form):
• Strategic decision: Is the problem due to something missing or flawed? Can
you fix this by further work?
• Tactical decision: How long can you afford to wait for publication?
Special cases (handle with care):
• Reviewers split (one for, one against).
• One reviewer seriously misunderstands (part of) your article.
• One reviewer clearly biased (<1% of cases).
Rebuttal: A letter that replies point by point to the criticisms made by the referees.
How to react
Above all, remember:
• The editor makes the decision, not the referee.
• The editor and referees are in principle on your side.
Some tips:
• Keep any rebuttal as short and as fact-based as possible.
Avoid any speculation about referees’ intelligence!
• Start always with your strongest rebuttal points, and keep
discussion of items you cannot deal with brief.
• Be respectful, even when saying that the referee is wrong
(use “sandwich” method: positive – negative – positive ).
• Keep close track of progress of your article during the
referee process, complain (respectfully) if there are delays.
Proofing and reprints
Proofing
• Read proofs very carefully. Read backwards. Only correct
errors – no change to article contents.
• Follow proofing instructions carefully and respond to
proofing queries promptly. This is your responsibility.
• Exceptionally, an addendum to mention a new article you
have learned about since submission can be made.
Reprints
• Use these for promotion of your results to scientists (to
referenced researchers, at conferences).
• Distribute pdf version and make available on web sites –
but ensure you are within copyright rules.
Conclusions of Lecture 6
Peer review is part of a process to establish the accuracy, novelty
and importance of the results you wish to publish.
The editor consults the reviewers, but the editor makes the final
decision, which can be accept, modify or reject.
If asked to modify your article or if it is rejected, consider carefully
whether it is worth resubmitting or trying another journal. How
likely is it that this will be accepted on resubmission, and how long
will this take?
Always treat editor and referees with respect, even when you
disagree. Remember that they are there to improve your article.
Follow the production process carefully and complain if there are
delays. Pay particular attention to the proofing process.
Class exercise
Read first 3 pages of manuscript
•
•
Does this article have a clear message?
Does it satisfy the 3 PRL criteria?
1) Importance: does it change understanding
of topic and lead to progress in subfield?
2) Interest: will the result be important to
other readers in other subfields?
3) Accessibility: is it easy for non-experts to
understand the importance and interest?
Homework for next lecture
Continue planning and writing your article!