Very few papers receive a “publish as is” ranking, so do not expect this to happen, especially if you are a new author. You will most likely be asked to undertake some revisions, from minor to major, and these can relate to writing, presentation or argument, or requests for more supporting evidence. Do not interpret “revise and resubmit” as a rejection. Certainly, it is a disappointment, but it is not a rejection. You are being told that the amount of work required to bring your paper up to rigorous academic standards is of a sufficiently high order that the paper must substantially change from its original state, and thus require another confidential review. The list of criticisms and suggestions for revision might be long. Most readers write helpful reports, but even if you come up against readers who uses the veil of confidentiality to produce a vicious or vindictive report, or to push their own agenda, you are obliged to respond to their reports in a meaningful way intellectually. Also trust that editors can recognize a self-serving or excessively polemical review. Usually, the revised and resubmitted paper will be assessed by at least one of the original reviewers and a new reviewer – but the pattern varies. The journal editors’ final decision will again be shaped by the reports. Journal editors are bound by the peer review process and so are you.
What of the non-refereed journal? Even in the case of journals that are not peer-reviewed, you will probably need to under-take some revisions, usually at the editor’s suggestion. But the review process will not be as extensive, which is why such articles carry less academic weight. So, when you submit to a non-refereed journal, be clear that you are doing this for compelling reasons, for example, a political commitment to the journal’s mandate or the chance to get your feet wet in the publishing world.
These articles are often called chapters in books, or book chapters, on the grounds that they appear as separate instalments in a singular volume that is edited by one or a few editors. But, remember, they are independent articles and, if the book is peer-reviewed, they enjoy a scholarly status similar to the peer-reviewed journal article. In addition to the volume’s editor(s), a press editor will shepherd the volume through its various processes and provide support. If the volume is being submitted to a particular series at a press – for example, Law and Society at University of British Columbia Press, or Studies in Gender and History at University of Toronto Press – the academic editor(s) of the series will work with the press editor and offer advice and support to the volume’s editors and contributors.
Step Five: Write out any minor criticisms of the article. Once you have laid out the pros and cons of the article, it is perfectly acceptable (and often welcome) for you to point out that the table on page 3 is mislabeled, that the author wrote “compliment” instead of “complement” on page 7, or other minutiae. Correcting those minor errors will make the author’s paper look more professional if it goes out for another peer review, and certainly will have to be corrected before being accepted for publication.
The Peer Review Process - Westmont College
Step Three: Write a brief summary of the article and its contribution. When I am doing a peer review, I sometimes do it all in one sitting – which will take me about two hours – or I read it one day and write it the next. Often, I prefer to do the latter to give myself some time to think about the article and to process my thoughts. When writing a draft of the review, the first thing I do is summarize the article as best I can in three to four sentences. If I think favorably of the article and believe it should be published, I often will write a longer summary, and highlight the strengths of the article. Remember that even if you don’t have any (or very many) criticisms, you still need to write a review. Your critique and accolades may help convince the editor of the importance of the article. As you write up this summary, take into consideration the suitability of the article for the journal. If you are reviewing for the top journal in your field, for example, an article simply being factually correct and having a sound analysis is not enough for it to be published in that journal. Instead, it would need to change the way we think about some aspect of your field.
Essays that fall short of that expectation are greatly weakened
The current retractions are not a new case of integrity breach but are the result of a deeper manual investigation which became necessary after our previous retractions from Tumor Biology in 2016. The extent of the current retractions was not obvious from the earlier investigations in 2015. We are retracting these published papers because the peer-review process required for publication in our journals had been deliberately compromised by fabricated peer reviewer reports.
PhD2Published has several informative posts about writing journal articles, and more recently has featured a post outlining a potentially revolutionary collaborative peer review process for this kind of publishing. Todays post offers an alternative perspective; that of the journal article peer reviewer. Doing peer reviews provides important experience for those writing their own papers and may help writers consider what they should include based on what peer reviewers are looking for.
Essays that simply fail to meet that expectation are unacceptable.
The scholarly article that enjoys the highest prestige is a peer-reviewed article that appears in a prestigious or highly reputable journal. Once you submit a piece to a peer-reviewed journal, the journal editor(s) will solicit experts or specialists to assess your work. Each “reader” or “assessor” who agrees to evaluate your article will produce a reader’s report. This usually consists of a mix of numerical and qualitative answers to a set of questions (or guidelines) posed by the journal and pertaining to the quality and value of your piece. The number of reviewers varies from two to four (and even five) readers. You are not obliged to carry out all of the suggested revisions but you must take all of them seriously. When you finish your revisions and send in your revised essay, you may need to explain your revisions to the journal editor(s). Keep a list of substantive changes made, and be clear and precise about what you did and did not do.
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging is peer-reviewed open access scholarly publication of the Indian Radiological and Imaging AssociationWhat are the relative merits of the peer-reviewed journal article and peer-reviewed book chapter? Generally speaking, the stand-alone peer-reviewed journal article carries more weight because it has been subjected to a greater degree of scrutiny, that is, several specialists have carefully reviewed it. By contrast, your book chapter article is submitted along with all the others. Usually, two readers assess the entire manuscript, which means they may not have scrutinized every article to the same degree or with the same authority. They might be more expert on some than on other articles. Also, the very strong articles, or those penned by senior authors, may help “carry” the weaker articles or articles by less-known authors.
In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journalIn a national survey of 560 otherwise successful teachers of writing and 715 of their students, Sarah W. Freedman (1985) found that many teachers grieved over the use of peer review groups because they had difficulty getting students to respond effectively to one another's writing. Vague comments such as the one at the beginning of this lesson proliferate. The students, too, complained about the writing responses, saying that their peers rarely offered substantial help with their writing. The result is that such vague comments rarely translate into effective revisions, and this is unfortunate because when students receive concrete suggestions for revisions, they do revise with the suggestions in mind (Ziv, 1983).
The organizational technique PQP-Praise-Question-Polish (Neubert, 1986) helps students focus on the task at hand as well as maintain a positive attitude toward the peer-review process.