Skip to content
Nicolas Robinson-Garcia
  • Home
  • Projects
    • LeaDing Fellows-MSCA ECOSCI
    • Bibliometría o Barbarie
    • SCI-COMM COVID-19
  • Research topics
    • Altmetrics
    • Open Science
    • Scientific mobility
  • Publications
  • Teaching
  • CV
    • Bio excerpt
    • Extended CV (pdf)
    • Short CV (pdf)
  • Notes
SciComm

Understanding the peer review system

  • January 14, 2021January 27, 2021
  • by Nicolas Robinson-Garcia

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.
Peer Review II – Elaborando la respuesta a revisores
The difference between i.e.; e.g., and cf.
peer review scientific publishing

Related articles

The difference between i.e.; e.g.,…
Peer Review II – Elaborando…
Science covers our work on…
Los entresijos de publicar (o…
New entry at The Bibliomagician:…
Jornada MOTIVADxS en la Universidad…
Results from the 2019 Responsible…
Premio SCImago al mejor artículo…
PUBLONS, aprovechando el poder de…
Movilidad científica, un fenómeno con…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Nullius in verba

(Not on authority)

Recent Posts

  • The difference between i.e.; e.g., and cf. January 27, 2021
  • Understanding the peer review system January 14, 2021
  • Peer Review II – Elaborando la respuesta a revisores November 27, 2020
  • New research line on COVID-19 and scientific communication June 24, 2020
  • Science covers our work on COVID-19 May 27, 2020

Categories

  • Bibliographies 2
  • Opinion 6
  • Paper notes 4
  • Projects 2
  • SciComm 11
  • Self-promotion 6
  • Uncategorized 1
Theme by Colorlib Powered by WordPress
  • Twitter
  • github
  • Flickr
  • LinkedIn
  • Slideshare