Navigating peer review

Peer review is a quality
control system. It ensures
that only the highest quality
research is published, at
least in theory, and as such
is the foundation of trust in
the scientific and research
systems for the public and for
other researchers.

The process begins when an author
submits their money script. Most
journals have an online platform
for this, although a few smaller
publishers or learned societies
might ask you to do it by email.
The editor who received the
manuscript screens it and they
might reject it at this stage -we
will talk some more about desk
rejections later. Or the editor
might decide to assign it to
review us, usually at least 2,
three or four is not uncommon.
Reviews are unpaid specialists
who are doing this work to give
back to the research field are
in an. They might or might not
know who the authors are. It
depends on the field a little
bit, and in any case they give
their professional opinion on
the manuscript and it might
recommend changes, either minor
or major, before the manuscript
is published. They might
recommend a rejection. Or they
might very rarely recommend accepting the manuscript as is.
And the editor then lets you
know what the comments are, the author responds and makes changes
if necessary and then eventually
the editor will make a final
decision on the manuscript. They
might decide to publish it or
reject it. They will take into
account everything reviewer
said, but ultimately the
decision is theirs.

Nearly all submission
systems will require a cover
letter. This is a bit like a
cover letter when you're
applying for a job, it's often
the first thing the editor will
read, and so it's a chance to
make a big impact. You should be
explaining why your article
should be considered by that
Journal. Don't be tempted to
just repeat the abstract. The
editor can see that. So it’d be a
waste of time. Instead, really
focus on what's in it for the
Journal. And you might want to
think about is it a novel or a
significant discovery? Will it
appeal to a broad audience?
Why is it important and how
can you evidence that?
It's also worth situating your
work within the context of the
field. Editors are really
experienced, but they might not
be as specialized as the
reviewers are. So explain a
little bit about what the state
of play is. What other key works
relate to yours?
Explain what the role of this
publication will be. Are you
refuting a theory? Are you
proposing another hypothesis,
or are you giving evidence for
an existing one?
And it's often a good idea to
link to general scope an justify
why you work fits in well with
this particular Journal. You
might want to compare it to
previous issues in terms of
research, question, methodology,
impact, or something else.

The length of your cover
letter might be specified in
the authors guidelines for
your Journal, and that,
generally speaking, it
shouldn't exceed a page in
length.

A desk rejection is when an
editor rejects the paper without
even consulting peer reviewers.
You should be able to avoid
these if you take the time to
prepare your manuscript
carefully and refine it to the
requirements of a particular
Journal. This can take more time
than you might expect.

So for instance, if you are
writing in a second language,
make sure you have somebody
proofread your work. Either
someone who can do it as a favor
or a commercial service. Always
avoid plagiarism, and that
includes self plagiarism because
software is almost always used
to detect it.

You should spend plenty of time
researching the scope and the
format of the general you want
to submit to, making sure that
your manuscript is a good match.
Read the authors’ guidelines very
carefully and comply to style
requirements, word counts,
figure allowance and so on.
References can often be a
sticking point, so make sure you
have formatted them impeccably.
And Lastly, if they require any
specific information, make sure
you include it.

Many Journals will allow you to
submit a cover letter with your
response. It's good practice to
start by thanking editor and
reviewers for their time. Don't
forget, they often unpaid to
do this and they are helping you
make you work better.
Summarize the main changes in
your cover letter and referred
to an attachment or to following
text for the details.

Some Journals allow you to use
the track changes functions in a
Word document to resubmit. In
other cases, it's a good idea to
copy the reviewer's comments and
then Interleaf your own
responses and details in a
different color or font.
Or some people choose to use a
table with a column for reviewers’
comments, one for your notes, and
one for the resulting text in
the manuscript. It's up to you
and check what the Journal
suggests. Some of them have
platforms that you have to use.

In any case, it's really
important that you address
every single comment. Reviewers
have taken, the time to make
them so. It's important that
you don't ignore them.
For each point, you might state
how you have addressed it and
refer to line numbers in the
text. Or if you're really
have checked and you're sure
that you're right. You might
politely explain why you haven't
made a change and give evidence
to back your points.

Bear in mind though, that if
you think the reviewers
misunderstood what you were
saying, then readers of the
manuscripts are likely to do
the same. So recognize your
lack of clarity and address
it in the manuscript.

After all, I know it can be
frustrating at times, but
this is a really good
opportunity to improve your
work for publication.

The most important thing to
remember is that your tone
should be unfailingly polite.
First of all, especially if
you're early in your career, you
should have the humility to
accept these comments from the
experts. And second a badly phrased
response will negatively affect
your reputation. Even if the
reviewers are not being very
diplomatic and sometimes they
aren't, do not reciprocate.

Remember there can be a culture
clash in some areas of the
world communication is a little
more direct than in the UK.

If you have a genuine concern
about the motives of a
reviewer, for example, you
might suspect that they have
a conflict of interest. Then
contact the editor. In these
cases are extremely rare, but
editors are trained to deal
with them.

It's good to write concisely and
clearly. You should be trying to
make the editor and reviewer's
jobs as easy as possible.

Is usually good practice to
right the first response, then
set it away a few days and come
back to it to check and revisit
it. And it's often good to
have someone check it for you
if there are causes of the
paper, then they definitely
should have a say. But even if
you are the sole author, you
can ask somebody to check it
for tone, clarity and accuracy
as a favor and acknowledge him
in the manuscript.