Guideline for the online seminar on Peer review for Yobe State University:

Introduction to peer review

• Brief history on scientific communication. Slides 1-10

Types of peer review

• Single-Blind review
• Double-blind review
• Open review

Types of responses one may expect

• Reject
• Historical rejections
• Reasons for rejections
• The resilience of the rejected
• Major  & minor revision (Slide 74)

How long does it take to receive a review of a paper?

• Patience! Good reviews take time
• 3/4 months is reasonable, although it varies greatly by field.
• Never send your manuscript to more than one journal at once.
• Whenever you feel that there are big delays you can always contact the editor. Be very polite.
• If the delay is unacceptable you can always withdraw your submission and then send it to another journal.

Responding to reviewers’ comments

• An example of a response
• Another example
• Example of a MAJOR revision
• Another example of a MAJOR revision

Politeness and its limits

Things reviewers look at

Formal issues:

• Manuscript within the journal’s scope – Example journal scope – Another example
• Clear structure
• A comprehensive message: Good writing-style
• Your paper has to have a story
• Literature review up to date and up to the point

Content-related issues:

• Novelty and complexity
• Clear methodology
• Reproducibility
• Adequate methods
• Good interpretation of findings

Sending the manuscript to the wrong journal

• A potential suggestion is to include your target audience in the paper
• The importance of cover letters. An example here.

• You can submit case studies to international journals, but they have to be well-framed. An example, anoter example and another one.
• In some cases, local cases my be very important. For instance here.

Other questions

Should I cite articles from my target journal?

• It is logical to expect that related papers to your topic have been published in the journal to which you are submitting your paper.
• In no case citing papers from the target journal should be made mandatory by editors or reviewers. This is a malpractice.
• Reviewers may suggest papers to cite, as long as it is reasonable to do so, it is fine to include them. Some of these papers may be his/hers, you should not be obliged to cite them.

The journal asks me to recommend reviewers. Who should I recommend?

• Good practices pay off in the long run. Recommended reviewers should not be directly related with you. That is a conflict of interests.
• They should be experts in the field.
• Choose and recommend world-leading experts, their reviews may be harsher but it sends a message of rigour and honesty to the editor.
• Editors are no fool! And if they are, maybe that is not the right journal.
• Recommending does not mean they will be contacted. But it helps editors to find similar experts.