Reviewing Articles Overview What is peer review? What is ... - ISRRT

Overview Reviewing Articles Background and Processes

What Purpose does a journal serve? 1. Register – of who did what, when, what they found 2. Acknowledges – the originator(s) originator(s) 3. Validation – through QC (peer review) 4. Dissemination 5. Archive #

What is peer review?

Types of peer review – Single blind – Open reviewing – Double blind #

What purpose does a journal serve? What is peer review? Background information on Radiography What roles do reviewers play? What roles do Editors play in the review process? Why become a reviewer? Selecting reviewers for an article Deciding whether or not to review the article How to become a reviewer Process analysis of manuscripts #

What is peer review? A quality mechanism Work is accepted – Aims and scope – Of a suitable standard

Work is rejected – Aims and scope – Of an unsuitable standard #

Background information on Radiography 23000 copies 73 countries A few thousand are webweb-based / multimulti-access – Each copy has potential access of several thousand

In 2007 – 98,000 full articles downloaded – 100 articles submitted – 330 reviewers invited to review #

1

Background information on Radiography Reviewers – ~400 – Figure increases regularly

Radiography – some assumptions – Is read widely, internationally – Is likely to inform practice, internationally – The quality of articles MUST be assured – Reviewers play a critical role #

What roles do reviewers play?

Background information on Radiography Reviewer performance – Average 14.5 days to review – Some articles can be revised up to 4 times – There is an increasing trend to ‘reject’ reject’ (60%), which means … … publishing in radiography is getting harder … … the quality of the journal is rising #

What roles do Editors play? Within the peer review process

Review articles for suitability – Discriminate

ADVISE the Editors Act as journal ambassadors Maintain confidentiality Help detect plagiarism #

What roles do Editors play? Within the peer review process – Read reviewer comments – Edits reviewers comments, as required (before sending to authors) – Gives reviewer feedback on final Editor decision

Handles conflict of opinions Make decisions … … and is responsible for them too #

– – – – – – – – –

Support the Reviewers Encourage the reviewers Not overuse the reviewers Acquire new reviewers Help develop reviewers Allocate articles to reviewers Set deadlines for reviews to be completed by Send reminders when deadlines are missed Terminate reviewers if reminders ignored #

Why become a reviewer Reviewers are not paid CPD To be associated with a particular journal Duty bound to help colleagues / … ‘reciprocal arrangement’ arrangement’ CV Being able to see new research before anybody else Its an honour #

2

Selecting reviewers for an article Not a coco-author Not the same institution Has a good track record of returning comments quickly Their interest is in same area as the article Has a good track record of saying ‘yes’ yes’ to reviewing an article Has a good track record of making helpful constructive comments #

Deciding whether or not to review the article The reviewer – Conflict of interest – Can they do it within the timescale – Is the subject their field – Suggestion – read it and then decide – Try not to say ‘yes’ yes’ and then later say ‘no’ no’ #

Author submits article via the web http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography/

How to become a reviewer

Elsevier staff check •article is complete •create pdf documents •email Editor in Chief

The ideal reviewer – – – – – – – –

Expert in a particular field Has published in a peer review journal previously Is able to provide constructive comments Is able to provide analytical comments Is able to review up to 6 papers per annum Will maintain confidentiality Will use a word processor and webweb-browser Will check their email account regularly #

Editor in Chief •Scan-reads the work •Invites reviewers, or •Passes it to a Review Editor, who •Invites reviewers

Revise - author will •Address reviewer comments

Reject - author could •rework article complete, or •submit to another journal

This continues until enough reviewers accept to review

Reviewer(s) says “no”, cannot review

Reviewer says “Yes”

Article is reviewed and comments given back to Review Editor / Editor in chief

Editor in chief / Review Editor •Reads reviewer comments •Makes decision (accept/revise/reject) •Informs author of decision and reviewer comments

Process Analysis

Reviewer meets unexpected time management problem and cannot do it

Process Analysis

Accept •Article is accepted in current form

Resubmitted

Review editor / Editor in Chief Reads work against reviewer comments

Steps to publication •type-set •proof read by author •published online immediately •published hardcopy when space permits

Article requires further revision •Editor may ask for work to be revised again, or •Editor may ask same reviewer(s) to review the work, if this then… •Reviewer provides comments •Author informed if further work is required on their article

3