1 / 19

Manuscript Review

Manuscript Review. Prepared by Noni MacDonald MD FRCPc Editor-in-Chief Paediatrics and Child Health Former Editor-in -Chief CMAJ. www.newmoon.uk.com/ritual/magickal-ink.gif. 2012. 1. Objectives. By the end of this discussion, the participant will be able to

renev
Download Presentation

Manuscript Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Manuscript Review Prepared by Noni MacDonald MD FRCPc Editor-in-Chief Paediatrics and Child Health Former Editor-in -Chief CMAJ www.newmoon.uk.com/ritual/magickal-ink.gif 2012 1

  2. Objectives By the end of this discussion, the participant will be able to Outline the steps for manuscript review and acceptance at a medical journal List the major factors peer reviewers are asked to take into account in reviewing a manuscript Describe other factors editors also consider Explain editorial terms like –intercept, revise, overhaul 2012 2

  3. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review 1 2 3 4 Intercept* Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 3

  4. Intercept-The Big “NO” Letter Editor + an associate editor looked over the manuscript: decided- not a fit by topic * bad science* poorly written* too many articles on topic not fit format of journal other…… No Reviews attached upload.wikimedia.org 2012 4

  5. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review* 1 2 3 4 Intercept Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 5

  6. Peer Review 1 Editor or assoced decides is worthy to go out for review 2 to 6 reviewers selected may include 1 or 2 suggested by author looking for at least 2 to 3 reviews to come in electronic review invitations faster, attached to database 2012 6

  7. Peer Review: Criteria Scientific Quality methods -including stats data for conclusions Presentation clarity of writing title - specific - fits content abstract - brief, clear figures and tables Research Violations ethics: human,animal Rating rank to sci in field Confidential novelty, significance Comments for Author # each, design, data consistent with rating 2012 7

  8. Peer Review Criteria Check List Importance of research question Originality of research Delineation of strengths & weaknesses methodology/experimental / statistical/interpretation of results 4. Writing style-table /figure presentation,citations accurate 5. Ethical concerns human,animal, no plagerism, no COI 6. Is it a good read? 2012 Benos et al Advances in Physiology Education 2003;27:47-52 Roberts et al. Academic Psychiatry 2004:28:81-87

  9. Peer Review: Criteria Manuscript “privileged” information do not disclose to others Destroy after your review- paper,tables, figures etc If shared work of review- when report state with whom did this 2012 9

  10. Peer Review: Editors Evaluation Thoroughness, comprehensiveness Timeliness Citation of evidence to support critique Constructive criticism Objectivity Clear statement re priority and appropriateness Benos et al Advances in Physiology Education 2003;27:47-52 2012 10

  11. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review 1 2 3 4 Intercept Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 11

  12. Reject Letter Take time review comments editor, reviewers Consider submit to another journal resubmit to same journal: address all concerns bp0.blogger.com 2012 12

  13. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review 1 2 3 4 Intercept Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 13

  14. Revise = Accept One step closer Address all comments change what can, explain why not if not Take your time but do NOT dawdle serious work May go out for review again…… commerce.concordia.ca 2012 14

  15. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review 1 2 3 4 Intercept Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 15

  16. Galley Proofs = Accept Only get one set Usually on line or email 3. Answer all queries 4. Check with great care - tables - figures - text = data - citations - authors names and spelling 5 Time deadline!!!! 6. Can now say article “in press” - often up online epub ahead of print – can cite 2012 16

  17. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review 1 2 3 4 Intercept Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 17

  18. Research and Writing a Paper Reviewing Your Paper We are building our boat and sailing it at the same time. David Heymann WHO on SARS crisis Explore.ca Peggy’s Cove, Canada 2012 18

  19. Authors Manuscript Re-submit Reject Revise Editor and Editorial Staff Galley Proofs Peer Review 1 2 3 4 Intercept Issue for publication set Paper published Online- print 2012 19

More Related