Reviewing for the RadiographyJournal

Prof Julie NightingaleEditor-in-Chief Radiography journal

With thanks to Dr Pauline Reeves Associate Editor

Aims

• Focus on editorial and peer review stage of publishing

• Explain how the reviewing process works in the Radiography journal specifically

• Discuss the role of the reviewer

• Encourage ‘new’ reviewers and enable current reviewers to benchmark their practice

Publishing Process

Planning

Article Preparation

Article Submission

Editorial / Peer Review

Production

How to use this presentation – please make sure that you read it on ‘notes page’ view as there is additional information available below the slides.

Radiography journal

• International peer reviewed journal (subscription and optional open access)

• Close collaboration with:• Elsevier (publisher); • Society and College of Radiographers (UK sponsor); • European Federation of Radiographer Societies

(European sponsor organisation)

Radiography Editorial Team

Editor-in-Chief – Prof Julie Nightingale

4 Associate Editors: – International – Dr Andrew England (UK)– UK + Europe – Dr Jonathan McNulty

(Ireland)– Americas – Prof Jeffrey Legg (USA)

25 Editorial Board members (international)

Purpose of Peer Review

• Mechanism by which we assess (and improve) the quality of scientific research prior to it being published.

• Independent researchers in the same field scrutinise submitted articles for validity, significance and originality.

• Their reports assist editors to assess whether the articles should be published in their journal.

• Ultimately the reviewers act as quality gatekeepers.

What peer review is not

• Peer review is a quality mark for science, but it is not saying that the research is perfect.

• Important role for the reader to undertake their own critical appraisal of a published article.

Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review. JAMA 2002;287(21):2784-6.

Peer Review Process in Radiography

• Double blind - ensures authors and reviewers remain anonymous … problems?

• Manuscript checked by journal office, then assigned by Editor-in-Chief to relevant associate editor, who will:

• Scrutinise title, abstract and keywords, to give them an indication of the reviewer expertise required.

• Access the author details (names and institutions) - exclude particular reviewers where there may be conflicts of interest.

• Reviewers selected with the assistance of a journal classification list

Elsevier Editorial System (EES)

Classifications

Importance of Classifications

• Reviewer pre-selects their classifications (specialisms)• Author selects classifications from same list • Author list matched with reviewer list to identify suitable

reviewers

• Ensure personal classifications updated and email address is current – effects of widening your classifications?

To update your classifications go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography/default.aspLog in as a reviewer and then select ‘change details’.

Selection of Reviewers –‘pairing’

• We invite at least two reviewers per paper who have complimentary expertise. E.g. • A subject and a methodology expert• A clinical and a researcher perspective• A methodology expert and an educator• A novice reviewer and an experienced reviewer

• The editor will normally put at least two additional reviewers ‘on reserve’ • high potential for busy colleagues to decline to review • reserve reviewers automatically invited.

Selecting the reviewer

• Editors try to screen out reviewers who have recent or current reviews in progress.

• We access information about reviewer performance, [no. reviews undertaken; quality and timeliness]

• Choose a reviewer based on all of the above• State review deadlines (normally 2-3 weeks)

What to do when you get a review invitation

• Email invitation – click on link to EES system / article.

• Have a quick look at title, keywords and abstract

• Does the article match your area of expertise? 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.

• Accept [ideally] or decline quickly

A note about turnaround times...

www.planet-science.com

Normally requested to complete review in 2 weeksSubmission to 1st decision = 5.4 weeks (7.6 in 2013)Biggest cause of delays – reviewer declines and no response2015 to date – 715 invitations / 167 declines / 150 withdrawals

How to approach a review

Where do you start?

“Show me something new!”

What do they have to say?

Are we the right audience?

Do they say it well?

Detailed review –what to look for...

• Logical structure (abstract, introduction, methods, discussion, conclusion) - checklist

• Use of English (succinct, grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph construction, punctuation etc)

• Compliance with aims and scope and guide for authors (referencing etc)

• Content (rationale, limitations acknowledged, references sufficient, take home messages, anything new?)

• Plagiarism and ethics

Don’t be seduced…

…by a well written article

• Does it have a sound rationale and methodology• What is the main message?• Is it of interest to our journal?

Scoring of the manuscript

Scientific Content [1-5; 1=poor, 5=excellent]English Language [1-5; 1=poor, 5=excellent]Style [1-5; 1=poor, 5=excellent]Highlights [1-3; 1=meaningful; 2= not

meaningful; 3= not provided]Abstract [1-3; 1=meaningful; 2= not

meaningful;3= not provided]Ethical standards achieved [yes, no]Original and not published elsewhere [yes, no]Potential for fast track [yes, no]

Your feedback to the Editor

- No article is expected to be perfect, reviewer feedback highlights serious gaps prior to publication

- Submit author comments and a recommendation:- REJECT - REVISE – Minor / Major- ACCEPT N.B. Editor option of

Reject offer resubmission

Constructive comments to author

• Helpful to the author• General comments then move to any specific comments• Don’t be patronising• Clear and concise, ideally spell-checked please• If possible, indicate how ‘the problem’ might be addressed• Don’t be idealistic, no research is perfect• Remember the work is now history so it is too late to

suggest an alternative approach

Example of feedback (recommending minor revision)

‘This is an interesting and topical article that addresses a current area of interest in radiography education. I believe it is suitable for publication but requires revision to address some minor issues. I have the following comments:’

• Methodology, para 5, line 6 ‐ who is 'the researcher'? Perhaps this could be replaced with 'to a member of the research team'.

• Methodology, para 6 ‐ this is a single sentence paragraph. Can it be incorporated into another?

(There were 20 minor points)

Example of feedback (major revision)

‘This has the potential to be a very interesting piece of work of interest to radiographers worldwide, but there are some areas of the manuscript that require further work prior to publication.The whole manuscript needs a thorough proof read as there are a number of grammatical and typographical errors [examples given]. There is also considerable repetition, particularly in the results and discussion sections, and removing this would improve the flow of the work. While the references used are extensive, they are not the most current, and in particular it would be important for the authors to acknowledge the following work which has been published recently in Radiography [examples given].’

Example of feedback (recommending reject)

‘This could have been an interesting piece of work …It was pleasing to see that there are …However, there were some major flaws in … and the write up lacked …,which made it impossible to recommend this article for publication’.

Editorial Decision

Why I accept an article?Joseph Astrachan, Editor of Family Business Strategy

Why I reject an articlePeter Thrower, Editor of Carbon

Provides insight into important issue It fails the technical screening

The insight is useful to people who make decisions

Does not fall within Aims and Scope

The insight is used to develop a framework or theory

It's incomplete

The insight stimulates new, important questions.

The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.

Appropriate methods used Conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper

Methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions.

Simply a small extension of a different paper, often same authors (salami slicing)

Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields are made

It's incomprehensible

The article tells a good story It’s boring

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

Informing the reviewers

• Following submission of their reviews and recommendations, reviewers are informed of the editorial decision (accept, revise or reject) and provided with access to other reviews of the same paper.

• Comparing reviews - excellent learning opportunity and enables the reviewer to compare styles and benchmark their contribution.

• Please expect to be invited to review the resubmission – please do this review wherever possible

So what are the benefits of being a reviewer?

• Essential skill to develop as a researcher - accepted part of ‘membership’ in the academic community

• Practicing professionals: improving critical thinking and developing feedback skills

• Keep in touch with current work in your specialist field

• Improves your CV – establishes expertise in the field and advances your reputation

• ‘Gives back’ to the professional community

Interested in being a reviewer?

If you would like to be a reviewer for Radiography please send an e-mail to radiographyjournal@elsevier.com, including a brief statement of your area of specialty and your current CV.

Any queries contact me directly on:

J.Nightingale@salford.ac.uk

RadiographyEditor@sor.org