Pointers for Surviving the Editorial Process

1. Pointers for Surviving the Editorial Process Peter B. Imrey, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Case Western Reserve University

2. How does the review process work? • Editor makes a value judgment • Importance of problem • Scope of eventual influence • Size of interested audience in journal readership • Innovation – either technical or applied • Technical quality • Completeness of problem solution • Quality of exposition

3. How does the review process work? • Editor selects referees. • Referees provide feedback to authors and editor. • Recommendation for decision • reject • resubmit after major revision • resubmit after minor revision • accept outright • indication of priority for the journal

4. How does the review process work? • Feedback to authors should • address the content of the paper, i.e., is what was attempted done well? • be frank, but constructive • be detailed, but not obsessively so • suggest what would make the quality of the paper better, including for another journal. • suggest what would make the paper more appropriate for this journal, if a revision might be acceptable. • NOT be flippant or dismissive – another person’s research potential and career are in your hands.

5. How does the review process work? • Feedback to editors should • focus on the issues of quality and appropriateness that should guide the editorial decision • clarify reasons for decision recommendation • explain nuances of recommendation, any ambivalence about recommendation • be very straightforward, NOT sacrifice clarity for diplomacy.

6. How does the review process work? • Editor makes decision • by default, follows referees. • can exercise discretion, including obtaining additional reviews if referrees disagree. • may equivocate – the editor’s way of giving the author a chance to prove him or herself • may be very directive – your choice whether to comply. • may sometimes by insufficiently attentive and make mistakes. • much to do • not expert in your topic. • may not recognize an unfair review – these do occur.

7. Learning from reviews • Don’t be thin-skinned. • Allow yourself to be irritated at first reading. You won’t be able to help it. • Put the reviews aside for 2-3 days after first reading. • Ask for help.

8. Learning from reviews • Seriously consider, point by point. • Reread the review. For each comment, put yourself in the reader’s place and try to understand why the reviewer felt that way. • Divide the comments into categories. • Those with which you agree. • Those you disagree with, but with which you’re willing to comply. • Those you disagree with, but with which you’re unwilling to comply but that do not involve core aspects of the paper. • Those you disagree with, but with which you’re unwilling to comply because they involve core aspects of the paper that are crucial to maintain.

9. Learning from reviews • Reconsider items in category 3), and consider converting to category 2). • Divide the comments in category 4) into • those that seems specifically dependent on choice of journal, and • those that address general content and/or quality and would be relevant for any journal. • Put aside for another day or two.

10. Learning from reviews • Now, dispassionately, consider practical choices. • Revise and resubmit, if available. • Decline to revise and withdraw. • Submit “as is” to alternative journal. • Revise and submit to alternative journal. • Change the concept of the paper. • Give up – go on to next project.

11. Responding to reviews • Be constructive, polite, somewhat deferential. Don’t insult the decision-makers. • Emphasize critical content issues. • Explain and point to substantive changes you have made to comply. • Give your substantive reasons for not complying with requests for substantive changes. • You can argue against requested changes that go well beyond the scope of the current paper.

12. Responding to reviews • Try to acknowledge all but trivial comments. Be very point-by-point specific. • But acknowledgement does not require changes. • You can respectfully, firmly challenge the editors, especially on process. • But make sure you have a leg to stand on, and do not harangue. • Some real-life examples of when you should appeal.

13. Some real-life examples of when you should. • Mandated reconciliation of contradictory reviews. • Reversal of acceptance due to change in editors. • Rejection due to non-existent prior publication. • Rejection due to discontinuity in review process.