1 / 36

Addressing Reviewers Comments and Revising Manuscripts After Peer Review

. . . Peer Review Process in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Paper reviewed by EIC. Primary Prevention. In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficientsIn a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence ratio regressionPresentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundantBe careful when comparing association strengthsStratified data in34656

carissa
Download Presentation

Addressing Reviewers Comments and Revising Manuscripts After Peer 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. Addressing Reviewers’ Comments and Revising Manuscripts After Peer Review Moyses Szklo Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Epidemiology

    3. Primary Prevention In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficients In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence ratio regression Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundant Be careful when comparing association strengths Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter are useful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

    4. Primary Prevention In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficients In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence ratio regression Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundant Be careful when comparing association strengths Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter are useful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

    5. Primary Prevention In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficients In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence/incidence ratio regression Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundant Be careful when comparing association strengths Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter are useful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

    7. Primary Prevention In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficients In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence/incidence ratio regression Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundant Be careful when comparing association strengths Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter are useful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

    8. Primary Prevention In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficients In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence/incidence ratio regression Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundant Be careful when comparing association strengths Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter are useful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

    9. Primary Prevention In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of beta coefficients In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulative incidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event, prevalence/incidence ratio regression Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standard errors simultaneously is often redundant Be careful when comparing association strengths Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter are useful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

    10. Association of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) scores (ln(CES-D + 1) with bereavement and baseline CES-D scores at 1 and 12-month interviews, adjusted for health and social network variables§, widowed and married women aged 65-74 yrs, Washington Co., MD, 1979-83

    11. Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) Mean Baseline and Follow-up Scores According to Whether Bereavement Occurred, Women Ages 65-75 Years, Washington County, MD, 1979-1983

    12. Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on maximum number of pages, other rules of presentation ? e.g., AjE requires aa to plot ratio-based measures on a log scale) Do not submit the same or similar publications to different journals Avoid abbreviations Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table Avoid the word, “effect”, when reporting observational results Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presented only in the text, add parenthetically something like “not shown in table/figure”

    13. Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on number of pages, other rules of presentation ? e.g., AjE requires aa to plot ratio-based measures on a log scale) Avoid abbreviations Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table Avoid the word, “effect”, when reporting observational results Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presented only in the text, add parenthetically something like “not shown in table/figure”

    14. Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on number of pages, other rules of presentation ? e.g., AjE requires aa to plot ratio-based measures on a log scale) Avoid abbreviations Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table Avoid the word, “effect”, when reporting observational results Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presented only in the text, add parenthetically something like “not shown in table/figure” Primary Prevention

    16. Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on number of pages, other rules of presentation ? e.g., AjE requires aa to plot ratio-based measures on a log scale) Avoid abbreviations Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table Avoid the word, “effect”, when reporting observational results Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presented only in the text, add parenthetically something like “not shown in table/figure” Primary Prevention

    18. Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on number of pages, other rules of presentation ? e.g., AjE requires aa to plot ratio-based measures on a log scale) Avoid abbreviations Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table Avoid the word, “effect”, when reporting observational results Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presented only in the text, add parenthetically something like “not shown in table/figure” Primary Prevention

    19. Focus on trends, not just on testing or precision Do not repeat results in the text that are clearly shown in tables Discuss the study’s limitations Paper should be as short as possible Primary Prevention

    20. Focus on trends, not just on testing or precision Discuss the study’s limitations Paper should be as short as possible Primary Prevention

    21. Focus on trends, not just on testing or precision Discuss the study’s limitations Paper should be as short as possible Primary Prevention

    22. Avoiding wordiness (Friedman, AJE 1990;132:591)

    24. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made by reviewers. Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of the reviewers’ comments. Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, “I thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion…” (that is, if you think it is thoughtful…) Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment. If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it is easy to implement it and it does not affect the science…do it! If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientifically sound, explain why.

    25. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made by reviewers. Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of the reviewers’ comments. Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, “I thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion…” (that is, if you think it is thoughtful…) Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment. If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it is easy to implement it and it does not affect the science…do it! If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientifically sound, explain why.

    26. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made by reviewers. Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of the reviewers’ comments. Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, “I thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion…” (that is, if you think it is thoughtful…) Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment. If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it is easy to implement it and it does not affect the science…do it! If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientifically sound, explain why.

    27. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made by reviewers. Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of the reviewers’ comments. Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, “I thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion…” (that is, if you think it is thoughtful…) Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment. If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it is easy to implement it and it does not affect the science…do it! If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientifically sound, explain why.

    28. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made by reviewers. Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of the reviewers’ comments. Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, “I thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion…” (that is, if you think it is thoughtful…) Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment. If you disagree with a request for a change, but it is easy to implement it and it does not affect the science…do it! If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientifically sound, explain why.

    29. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made by reviewers. Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of the reviewers’ comments. Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, “I thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion…” (that is, if you think it is thoughtful…) Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment. If you disagree with a request for a change, but it is easy to implement it and it does not affect the science…do it! If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientifically sound, explain why.

    31. Decisions made for submissions to the AjE between 1/1/08 and 6/30/08

    33. Reputed rejection slip from a Chinese economics journal

    35. Adjusted* Risk (Hazard) Ratios of Coronary Heart Disease by Selected Factors, with 95% Confidence Intervals, Men 40-64 Yrs. Old at Baseline, 5-year Follow-up, 1975-79

More Related