Microsoft PowerPoint - ScientificWriting_Session2-EditorialProcess&Reviewing_UNCMed

5/7/2024

The Editorial and Review Process

Bill Miller, MD, PhD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief, Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Professor, Department of Epidemiology

Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC

bill_mil[email protected]

*parts of this presentation are adapted from a presentation by Morris Weinberger, PhD, UNC-

Chapel Hill

Why do we talk about

publications?

Publication expectations

You MUST understand the expectations in your situation:

Department and/or School

Future jobs/promotion

5/7/2024

Expectations: common metrics

Number of papers

Number of papers in “high impact” journals

Mean number of citations

h-index

m-index (m-quotient)

i10-index

h-index

An individual measure of productivity and impact of a scientist/scholar

H-index  h papers cited at least h times

h-index

5/7/2024

h-index

m-index (m-quotient)

m = h-index/years since first publication

i10 index (Google scholar)

Number of publications with at least 10 citations

5/7/2024

Types of publications

Journal research articles

Journal supplement research articles

Systematic review articles

Narrative review articles

Methods papers

“Thought pieces”

Editorials/Commentaries

Book chapters

Books

Abstracts

Value of publication types

Types of research articles

-RCT

-Observational

-Case series

Regular or supplement?

Reviews

- Narrative or systematic?

Value of publication types

Should I write that book chapter?

Usually, the answer is NO!!!

They just aren’t worth the time & energy

5/7/2024

The book is “important” in your field

Your relationship with the person asking you to write it is critical for you

The literature review will be invaluable to you

When are book chapters worth it?

Value of publication types

Thought pieces/methods papers

Editorials/Commentaries

Why are these publication types useful?

Make a name for yourself!

Often, they are highly cited

FHI – “volunteer”

Given paper to read

Translate paper &

write “new” version

Publish paper

Ward Cates

5/7/2024

FHI – “volunteer”

Given paper to read

“Translate” paper,

write new version

Publish paper

CID Editorial

FDA Statement

CDC Workshop

Consultant –

Dx Test Guidelines

RTI Grant Submission

RTI ED

Project

RTI Balt

Pop Survey

Submission

RTI/UNC

Wake Co

Project

(In Development)

RTI

BSBS

JAMA

Paper

Add Health

Dx test “expert”

Prevalence analysis

Ct/GC JAMA Paper

Talk in Pathology

ENA Paper

Latent Class Analysis

Tv Papers (UNC)

Julie Schachter

Abstract to publication ratio

Too many abstracts = “unable to complete projects” or “spending too

much time at conferences”

-Need to balance need for visibility (through conferences) with

need for publication and visibility of FINAL product

-Avoid submitting abstract simply so you can attend a meeting

-Make your abstracts “count”

Impact factor: Choice of journals

Impact factors are one consideration

Measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has

been cited in a particular year or period.

2023

= citations

2023

/(publications

2022

+ publications

2021

)

citations

2023

5-year IF

2023

= ------------------------------------------------------------------

(publications

2022

+ publications

2021

+ publications

2020

+ publications

2019

+ publications

2018

)

5/7/2024

Impact factor - 2022

Impact

Factor

Journal

168.9Lancet

105.7BMJ

120.7JAMA

158.5NEJM

7.7Int’l Journal of Epidemiology

5.4Epidemiology

5.0American J of Epidemiology

3.1Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Article Influence Score & Eigenfactor Score

Article Influence Score: Average influence of a journal’s articles over 5

years. A score >1.0 indicates an above average influence

AIS = (0.01*Eigenfactor Score)/(# papers over 5 yrs for journal/ all papers over 5 yrs)

Eigenfactor Score: Number of times articles from a journal are cited over

5 years, taking into account which journals cited the articles (highly cited

journals contribute more weight than less cited journals); self-citations

are removed.

Normalized Eigenfactor: Rescaled Eigenfactor such that an average

journal = 1. A score of 5 indicates a journal has 5 times the influence as

an average journal.

Choosing a journal

Match your paper to the journal

Understand the journal’s personality

Use your mentors and colleagues

And use this helpful resource:

https://jane.biosemantics.org/

5/7/2024

Screen shot #1

Traditional or open access

Traditional publication:

Journals charge subscription fees, including libraries

- free to authors (usually)

- may be fees for figures, color figures/photographs, extra pages

Readers must have subscription, individual or institutional

Open access:

Author pays fee for publication

Free to readers

5/7/2024

Open access

Many excellent open access journals

- PLoS

- BMC

Beware of predatory open access journals

- Minimal review process

- Publish for profit, not for science

- Often use similar names to major journals (e.g. Epidemiology: Open Access)

Predatory open access journals

Number of Predatory PublishersYear

182011

232012

2252013

4772014

https://beallslist.net/

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense

of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from

best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of

aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.

Common solicitations

5/7/2024

Predators are quick!

Hi Dr. Gregory C Chang,

May you enjoy a bountiful Thanksgiving Day!

Thanksgiving is a day to give thanks for what we have, not to save a few to get more. “Be thankful for what we have”.I would like to personally thank you for all the

support from the commencement of the day to till now and I feel really proud to work with distinguished Researchers like you.

If you are really thankful, what you do is "Sharing".

On this occasion we are ready to share your valuable ideas, suggestions and contributions for my Journal that can put an edge over others. I feel pleasurable, if you can submit

any kind of article for this coming issue only.

Once again I honestly thank you for being with us in all the success. Anticipate receiving from you soon.

Please sign up for the latest Medcrave articles and follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Sasha Connelly

EDITORIAL & REVIEW ANALYST

Phone: +36 180 38002

MedCrave Group

8 years excellence in publishing

USA |EUROPE | ASIA

Article published 21 Nov 2022

Email received 25 Nov 2022

Predators are quick! Predatory conferences!

Article published 21 Nov 2022

2nd Global Virtual Conference on Nursing and Patient Safety

April 14-15, 2023 | Online Conference

Dear Dr. Gregory C. Chang,

Greetings from Nursing World 2023!!

The Organizing Committee of Nursing World Conference 2023 would like to invite you as a Speaker with your Colleagues to participate and deliver an oral/

poster presentation at the 2nd Global Virtual Conference on Nursing and Patient Safety to be held during April 14-15, 2023 as a Virtual conference with the

Theme: Exploring the advanced practices in nursing & Patient Safety.

For more information, you can visit; https://nursing.researchermeetings.com/

Your participation and support will help the conference to be a great knowledge enriching experience for all the participants who will be joining the conference

from across the globe.

To book your speaker presentation slot, please submit your abstract for the presentation online; https://nursing.researchermeetings.com/abstract/

We sincerely hope that you will honor us by accepting our invitation to join us for the conference.

It would be our pleasure to have an eminent person like you as a Speaker for our prestigious conference.

For any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Waiting for your kind response.

Thanks & Regards,

Sandra Brown

Program Manager

Nursing World 2023

Wenlock Road, London, England, N1 7GU, UK

Phone: +44 7480723519

Email Id: nursinginfo@researchermeetings.com

Email received 28 Nov 2022

16 warning signs of fake journals

1. Website: The journal’s website contains misleading or false information (eg,

indexing, metrics, membership of scholarly publishing organisations), lacks an

ISSN or uses one that has already been assigned to another publication, mimics

another journal/publisher’s site, or has no past or recent journal content.

2. Name of journal: The journal name is the same as or easily confused with that of

another; scope, or association.

3. Peer review process: Peer review and peer review process and model are not

mentioned, or manuscript acceptance or a very short peer review time is

guaranteed. Submitted manuscripts receive inadequate or no peer review.

4. Ownership and management: Information about the ownership and/or

management is missing, unclear, misleading, or false.

5/7/2024

16 warning signs of fake journals

5. Governing body: Information on the editorial board is missing, misleading, false, or

inappropriate for the journal; full names and affiliations of editorial board members

are missing.

6. Editorial team/contact information: Full names and affiliations of the journal’s

editor/s and full contact information for the editorial office are missing, the editor-

in-chief is also the owner/publisher, or the editor-in-chief is also the editor of many

other journals, especially in unrelated fields.

7. Copyright and licensing: Policies and notices of copyright (and publishing licence

and user licence) are missing or unclear.

8. Author fees: Mandatory fees for publication are not stated or not explained clearly

on the journal website, submission system, or the letter of acknowledgement

and/or are revealed only in the acceptance letter, as a condition of acceptance.

16 warning signs of fake journals

9. Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct:

There is no description on how cases of alleged misconduct are handled.

10. Publication ethics: There are no policies on publishing ethics (eg,

authorship/contributorship, data sharing and reproducibility, intellectual property,

ethical oversight, conflicts of interest, corrections/retractions).

11. Publishing schedule: The periodicity of publication is not indicated and/or the

publishing schedule appears erratic from the available journal content.

12. Access: The way(s) in which content is available to readers, and any associated costs,

is not stated, and in some cases listed articles are not available at all.

16 warning signs of fake journals

13. Archiving: There is no electronic backup and preservation of access to journal

content (despite such claims).

14. Revenue sources: Business models, business partnerships/agreements, or revenue

sources are not stated; publishing fees or waiver status are linked to editorial

decision making.

15. Advertising: Advertising policy is not given, or advertisements are linked to editorial

decision making or are integrated with published content.

16. Direct marketing: Direct marketing is obtrusive and gives misleading or false

information.

https://publicationethics.org/files/cope_dd_a4_pred_publishing_nov19_screenaw.pdf

5/7/2024

Avoiding predatory journals

Identify trustworthy journals through the Think.Check.Submit. campaign.

https://thinkchecksubmit.org/

Common barriers to submission

Fear of rejection

Lack of confidence in writing skills

Lack time

Need for perfection

Don’t let perfectionism interfere!

Your goal?

The perfect is the enemy of the good!

-Voltaire

Good enough!

Maximizing publication success

Clearly define your research question

Tell a clear and compelling story

Determine authorship early

Choose your audience and journal carefully

Follow the journal’s rules for manuscripts

Understand the publication process

Plan your time

Know yourself and your work habits

Plan on multiple drafts

Share your work early (and often)

5/7/2024

Common components of submission

Cover letter

Author list, affiliations, contact information

Key words

Abstract

Manuscript text

Figures

Financial disclosures

Cover letter

Brief statement to the editor

Highlight importance of your work in 1 or 2 sentences, not more

Identify 3-4 competent reviewers

Generally, do not identify persons you want to exclude from possible

reviewers

Include any specific language the journal requires

Key words

Can be used to guide search engines

- You want your work to be found easily when people are looking

for papers in your area

Choose your words carefully

Include both broad (sensitive) and narrow (specific) terms

5/7/2024

Abstract

Follow journals instructions for the abstract

- Structured versus not

- Word count

Remember the abstract is the most read part of any paper

Manuscript text

Double-spaced text is common

Follow formatting requirements, including references

Line numbers!!!

Line numbers make the reviewer’s & editor’s

jobs easier—you want their jobs to be easy!!!

Figures

Include complete figure legends – a description of the figure content

Avoid wasting space

- Limit bar graphs

Avoid three dimensional figures (e.g. pie charts)

Make the figures pretty  Do not use Excel defaults

Consider color versus gray scale

- If using gray scale, ensure sufficient discrimination

5/7/2024

Typical journal structure

Editor-in-Chief

Associate/Deputy Editors

Managing Editor

Editorial Board

Reviewers

Manuscript processing

Manuscript submitted

Managing editor  format acceptable?

Editor-in-chief reviews

Associate Editor reviews

Peer reviewers assigned

REJECT

Revise & resubmit

Peer reviewers recommend

Manuscript processing

Peer reviewers’ recommendations

Associate Editor reviews

REJECT

Revise & resubmit

“cannot accept in current form”

Editor-in-chief reviews

Author informed

5/7/2024

Manuscript processing - Revision

Manuscript resubmitted

Associate Editor reviews response

Peer reviewers assigned

Revise & resubmit

REJECT

Peer reviewers recommend

Editor-in-Chief reviews response

Return to Manuscript processing after review if peer-reviewed a second time

Revise and resubmit

Papers almost never accepted outright without revisions

Revise and resubmit is almost always a good thing

Reviews are intended to strengthen the science and enhance the

manuscript quality

Reviews: What you don’t see

Reviews have two parts: comments for the authors and comments for the

editors

Comments to the editor can be frank assessment of the paper

- occasionally may not reflect what the reviewer wrote in the comments for

author

- may encourage re-review

- may indicate need for additional review, such as a statistical review

- may comment on the writing, grammar, structure

5/7/2024

How do editors choose reviewers?

Journals maintain databases of reviewers

- reviewers’ areas of expertise are documented

- some journals grade reviews

- good reviewers are asked again

Authors of papers previously published in the journal

Reference lists from manuscript under consideration

Pubmed searches on similar topics

Before you read that review…

Put on your armor

Be prepared for harsh and unkind words

Try to separate your self from the science

Remember the purpose of reviews: to improve the quality of the

science and its communication

Responding to reviewers & editor

Revise quickly

Write for the editor and the reviewer

- you do not know for sure whether it will go back out to the reviewers

Be conciliatory in your tone. The reviewers are “right” to some extent, even

when you disagree.

Begin with a brief thank you to the reviewers.

- You do not need to thank them for every comment.

- Please don’t say “We agree” for (nearly) every comment.

5/7/2024

Responding to reviewers & editors

Do all of the easy/moderate changes, even when you disagree (unless it really

weakens paper)

Do the hard changes that will really strengthen paper

Resist the hard changes that will take too long, be too difficult, or will not

improve paper

- Make a clear argument why you don’t want to make the change

- Often, additional language in discussion can be used instead of major

additional analyses

Responding to reviewers & editors

One more time:

Tone and responsiveness are critical

A sure way to turn a “revise & resubmit” into reject is:

1) A tone that says, “I am smarter than you. How dare you criticize my work!”

2) Arguing or countering each point rather than making changes to the

manuscript

The response is not a debate.

It is a document detailing substantive changes.

Responding to reviewers & editors

After reading the initial decision (revise & resubmit vs reject), wait

before reading the reviews.

Let your emotions settle down

Wait until you’re cool, then read the reviews

Then give yourself another day, and only then develop your responses

Do not take reviews personally. Remember the goal is to advance the

science and the reviews are intended to improve your paper, not be a

critique of your abilities. It is not about you; it is about the science.

5/7/2024

Structure of the response

Enumerate each issue raised by the reviewers

- copy word for word

- In the same order as the reviews: reviewer 1, reviewer 2, reviewer 3

Draft a response that highlights the changes made in the manuscript

- word for word if short; only point to place in text if long change

Shorten as necessary

Structure of the response - Intro

Authors Response

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript for consideration of publication in The Lancet. We

have responded to every comment, from the editors and reviewers. Our original manuscript was over the word

limit, at 5672 words. We have substantially reduced the words in the current version to 4997 words. To shorten

the manuscript and also provide substantive changes in response to the reviewers, we have added three

appendices, which provide additional details of the methods (Appendix A), the intervention manual (Appendix

B), and supplemental results (Appendix C). Point-by-point responses are given below in italics.

Structure of the response – Small changes

Reviewer 1 (stats):

1) Was randomisation stratified by site or any other factor?

RESPONSE: Yes, randomization was stratified by site. This has been clarified:

Line 101-102: “Index participants (“indexes”) were randomly assigned to either the SOC or intervention arms at a

ratio of 3:1 (SOC:intervention). Randomization was stratified by site, and used a permuted-block design.”

2) By probability ratio, do the authors mean risk ratio, odds ratio or another formula? For example, in Stata, the

log-linear binomial regression allows for odds ratio, risk ratio and risk difference so I am not sure what the

probability ratio mean.

RESPONSE: To clarify, we use ART use as an example. probability ratio = P(Alive and on ART at x

time|intervention)/P(Alive and on ART at time x|SOC). Given that this describes a state, e.g. the proportion of

persons who were using ART at a given point of time, the probability ratio is analogous to a prevalence ratio at the

given point of time. The probability ratio is not a risk ratio (cumulative incidence ratio) because persons may have

started ART and stopped by the time point used for the assessment. This has been clarified:

Line 222: “Probability ratios (PR), analogous to prevalence ratios at a specific time point, were used to compare”

5/7/2024

Structure of the response – Paragraph change

33)3rd sentence: the way the sentence is written, it sounds like partners who were not HIV-infected

were enrolled, but there were other reasons, listed in fig 1, that partners were not enrolled.

RESPONSE: We agree that it was confusing as written. We have revised the paragraph by making the

references to the indexes sequential, which then makes the partner enrollment sequential. We have

also made the partner section its own paragraph

Structure of the response - decline

3) Scalable: The authors describe the intervention as scalable. Many sites around the world are working to

scale-up up ART use and improve retention. <Text deleted for brevity of demonstration> This was a

preparatory trial and there may not be sufficient data, but it would be helpful to know if specific navigation

or counseling activities were associated with ART use and viral suppression and mortality and why the

results were not as good in Indonesia. The authors report that participants in Ukraine and Vietnam used

more psychosocial services than participants in Indonesia and Indonesians lived further from treatment

centers (no distance from site data was presented in the results). This question probably deserves more

investigation and discussion.

RESPONSE: We agree that trying to identify the specific aspects of this intervention that appeared to be most

important would be informative. However, the intervention was designed as a package, addressing barriers to

ART and MAT uptake at both the system and individual levels. We did not pre-specify any analyses attempting

to dissect the effect. We are currently in the planning phase for these analyses, and we intend to write a

separate paper or papers that delves into this issue in some depth. Those analyses will take some time to do

well, as we will examine the number and types of counseling sessions and navigator activities. At this time, we

do not wish to speculate beyond the intervention package as a whole.

Structure of the response – previous change

11) The authors describe the intervention as flexible, integrated, and scalable. One example of flexibility is that

different staff (i.e., clinicians, counselors, master-level staff) performed navigation/counseling activities at

different sites and counseling sessions were meant to adjust based on client needs. If there are other

examples of adjustments to participant navigation or the integration of the activities in routine practice

that could be presented in the methods or results, that would be interesting.

RESPONSE: Please see response to Reviewer 2’s point #2 above.

33) 3rd sentence: the way the sentence is written, it sounds like partners who were not HIV-infected were

enrolled, but there were other reasons, listed in fig 1, that partners were not enrolled.

RESPONSE: We agree that it was confusing as written. We have revised the paragraph by making the references

to the indexes sequential, which then makes the partner enrollment sequential. We have also made the partner

section its own paragraph

5/7/2024

Structure of the response - Alternative

9) Reviewers are asked to 'comment on the extent to which you believe this submission can change practice

or thinking'. The intervention (case management and counseling), as described in the methods, does not

differ substantially from activities being implemented at HIV treatment sites around the world by

governments and NGOs. The rigorous assessment of the outcomes; however, is a model of how

programmatic data can be used to monitor and adjust activities aiming to increase the proportion of PLHIV

on ART and virally suppressed.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this insightful and well-worded suggestions to our research in context section. We

have added text to this section on lines 39-41 and 52-55.

My preference is against…

RESPONSE: Thank you for this insightful and well-

worded suggestions to our research in context section.

We have added text to this section on lines 39-41 and

52-55.

Reviewers are asked to 'comment on the extent to

which you believe this submission can change practice

or thinking'. The intervention (case management and

counseling), as described in the methods, does not

differ substantially from activities being implemented

at HIV treatment sites around the world by

governments and NGOs. The rigorous assessment of

the outcomes; however, is a model of how

programmatic data can be used to monitor and adjust

activities aiming to increase the proportion of PLHIV on

ART and virally suppressed.

Some editors may really like this approach. I

know many senior authors swear by it. I find

it harder to follow

Challenging rejections

You can occasionally challenge a rejection

- can occur at any stage (e.g. with or without review)

- can ask for a new “impartial” reviewer

You must have a compelling case: evidence that reviewer did not seem

qualified or was biased

Be concise in your written request. The editor has many papers to deal with;

you just have the one.

Respect the editor’s final decision.

5/7/2024

After acceptance

Your paper may or may not be edited by a professional editor

- depends on the journal and their budget

- you have some, but not complete, control over changes made

You will receive galley proofs with these changes and with the article

formatted for publication

- review the proofs very carefully

- make sure any editing has not changed the intended meaning

- answer any author queries completely

Purpose of journal peer review

Improve the quality of individual manuscripts

Improve the quality of published science

Improve journal quality

Educate and help authors

Advance knowledge

Your role as a reviewer

Part of your responsibility to the profession

- Reasonable rule of thumb: one submission to a journal merits a minimum of

two reviews for that journal

Time-consuming, relatively thankless task

Early career investigators often provide better reviews than more established folks

5/7/2024

Peer review

Peer review is based on a centuries’ old Western system

It is a system built by people of privilege, largely for other people of privilege

Sexism, racism, nationalism, epistemicide* enter the process too often

Poor reviews:

- silence new ideas

- leads to important work being shelved

- silence brilliant people

- delays authors’ advancement

Ideally, peer review = reflexive mentorship

*epistemicide: the killing, silencing, annihilation, or devaluing of a knowledge system

de Souza, R. Peer reviewing, epistemic violence, and “reflexive mentorship”.

https://www.ncfdd.org/februarynews24?utm_source=NCFDD&utm_medium=emailnurture&utm_campaign=news&utm_keyword=general

&utm_content=2024February

Peer review = reflexive mentorship

Recognize the importance of academic generosity, collegiality &

collaboration

Tend carefully to precarious voices

Act as allies for community of scholars—encourage new ideas, hone

existing ideas, strive for excellence

“Every review is a crucial historical event that offers a renewed

opportunity to disrupt and democratize the existing canon.”

de Souza, R. Peer reviewing, epistemic violence, and “reflexive mentorship”.

https://www.ncfdd.org/februarynews24?utm_source=NCFDD&utm_medium=emailnurture&utm_campaign=news&utm_keyword=general

&utm_content=2024February

Put simply: Be kind & constructive

Qualities of a good reviewer

Review only papers you are qualified to review

- You can correspond with editor about your comfort level. She may still want your

input

Inform editor about conflicts of interest. Ask editor if you are unsure.

Respond promptly to every query for review

- Better to say “no” right away, so the editor can find another reviewer

Do not:

1) fail to indicate whether you will or will not review (a big waste of time!);

2) fail to complete review after agreeing to do it.**

Provide a thoughtful & considerate review.

**ARGH!!!

5/7/2024

Steps for a good review

Read the paper once soon after you receive it

Jot a few notes

Let it ruminate; check out any questions it may have raised

Read again in 1-2 days. Jot down the key points

Give it another day and a final read, and write the review OR

Finish the review right after the second read

Qualities of a good review (1)

Objective assessment of the paper

Thorough, focus on the science

Consider the big picture; what does this paper add to our knowledge?

Does the paper confirm what we already know? Is that confirmation important?

Does the paper have a fatal flaw?

Have the authors conveyed that information clearly?

Limit your comments to the areas that you know about. Don’t provide comments outside

your expertise

- if you don’t feel qualified, let the editor know early. Comment only on what you can.

Qualities of a good review (2)

Begin with positive (kind) statements**

Number comments; indicate page number & paragraph

Small explicit statements with clear explanations

Provide solutions to the problems raised, rather than just pointing them out

Group major comments and minor comments

Organize by most important first or by section—either can be effective

Be kind and constructive.

Phrase the comments like you would like to receive them.

**BUT…

Don’t say it is well written when it is not

Or that it is important when it is not

Or that it is interesting when it is not

5/7/2024

Thoughtful review should touch on

Importance of the study question

Rigor of the scientific method

Appropriateness of the approach/methods

Contribution to the scientific literature

Appropriateness of interpretation & conclusions

Success of the manuscript in communicating to the reader

Editor’s & journal’s criteria

Appropriateness of content for journal readership

Originality and content

Appropriateness of study design & methods

Validity of conclusions

Quality of writing

Editor’s considerations for revise & resubmit

What needs to be done to make this publishable?

Is the paper too long?

Should the paper be a brief communication or research note?

5/7/2024

Editor’s considerations with accept

Worthy of commentary or editorial?

- supportive or counterpoint by one of the reviewers?

Press release? Tweet?

Placement in the journal?

Good reasons to publish in a specialty journal!

Becoming a reviewer

Let editor know you are interested in reviewing

- more likely to work with specialty journals

- provide description of your expertise

5/7/2024

Write what you know!

Thank you!!!

Bill Miller

bill_mil[email protected]

Rejection: An all-too-familiar experience