Science Editing, Peer Review and Editor s Role Markku Löytönen 3.5.2005 University of Helsinki Department of Geography
Outline Editor s operative context Manuscript arrives Choosing the reviewers Review statements arrive Revised manuscript arrives Page proofs Forms Summary
Julkaisemisen asiantuntijapalvelut Helsingin yliopistolla Julkaisuprosessien analysointi ja kehittäminen "Toimittajalinja" "Toimitussihteeri- ja tuotantolinja" Julkaisusarjan hallinto: toimitusneuvosto, julkaisustrategia Kustannustoiminta Julkaisutekniikan koulutus Graafinen suunnittelu; tiedeviestinnän visuaalisuus Sähköinen julkaiseminen Julkaisemisen laatujärjestelmän kehittäminen Julkaisijan peruskurssi, perustietopaketti julkaisemista aloittavalle Tekninen tuki, Help Desk, FAQ Markkinointisuunnitelma Verkkopalvelut Tieteellinen kirjoittaminen; verkkokirjoittaminen Kielentarkastus Työasemat, näytöt, värinhallinta, fontit jne. Copy, markkinointiviestintä Skannaus- ja OCR- palvelut Toimitustyö, editointi Kustannuslaskenta, 'businesskonsultointi' Julkaisemisen työkalut tyylipohjat, taittopohjat Markkinointi, myynti, jakelukanavat Kuvapankki Laadunvarmistus, referee Tekijänoikeudet Digipaino Pikapainot Monitoimilaitteet laitoksilla Offsetpaino Posteritulostimet Oheistulostimet
A Few Words about Open Access What is open access How many journals? Finland and open access Please see: Sakari Karjalainen, Juha Arhinmäki, Bo-Christer Björk, Gustav Björkstrand, Hannele Hermunen, Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen, Annu Jylhä-Pyykönen, Anita Lehikoinen, Maija Lehtinen, Markku Löytönen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Marko Rajaniemi, Pentti Rauhala, Raimo Väyrynen et Kimmo Kuusela (2005). Avoimen tieteellisen julkaisutoiminnan työryhmän muistio. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2005: 8. 38 p.
Manuscript Arrives Acknowledge the author of the receipt of the MS Overall evaluation does it look good Policy of your journal if OK, then proceed to technical checking If not OK, then return the MS and thank for submitting to your journal explain why it was returned suggest changes (if applicable) suggest another journal more suitable for the MS
Technical Checking What does this mean? length language figures tables references order of parts required number of copies If not OK, then return the MS and thank for submitting to your journal ask for technical finalising ask to resubmit
If the MS Passes the First Check Explain the author that the MS will be sent to reviewers No need to tell how many reviewers Do tell how long this usually takes Always keep the author well informed
Choosing the Reviewers How many varies considerably no less than 2 no more than 4 Know the field consult recent articles consult the list of references of the MS Know the people who are the experts watch out for conflict What Editors do in congresses...
Sending the MS to Reviewers No need for prior consent Ask for quick processing No reply for 4-8 weeks, send a polite reminder No reply for 12 weeks, send another reminder or replace the reviewer with another person
Statements Arrive; In the Negative Write a letter as The Editor Explain why the MS was rejected and return the material to the author Include copies of the referee statements Suggest nothing, or Suggest resubmission after major revision, or Suggest other series more suitable Thank again for submitting to your journal
Statements Arrive; Acceptable After Revision Write a letter as The Editor Say which of the comments must be taken into account (Editor s judgement) Say which of the comments must be considered (Editor s judgement) Include copies of statements and the marked MS (if applicable)
Has the Manuscript Now......been accepted for publication? NO! It has not been rejected
The Difficult Question
Statements Arrive; Acceptable as it is Never heard of... Remember always keep the author informed thank for their effort and for submitting to your journal authors compete for space in good journals journals compete for good manuscripts
Some Examples Statements about my manuscripts
Statements
Statements...
Statements...
Good and Bad Referees I asked a colleague recently how his recent submission had fared in review. One bad review, one good review, he replied. The bad one liked it but it was really superficial I don t think they understood it. The good one didn t like it much, but the review was just wonderful. By which he meant it was really insightful and helpful to the quality of his science. Hoppin, Frederick G. Jr. (2002). How I Review an Original Scientific Article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166: 1019-1023.
Revised MS Arrives Check what the author has done If you are uncertain consult the reviewer should be avoided unless crucially important ask the author for a more precise explanation (e-mail is wonderful!) Use your own judgement that s what editors are for If no corrections are made, then reject the MS If OK send the material to the copy editor inform the author that the MS was passed on to the printer for page setup if possible, tell the issue it will be printed in
Page Proofs Arrive Send one copy to the author ask to return asap include a reprint order form Read proofs carefully author the subject matter editor the subject matter and the layout copy editor the layout Check corrections made by the author do not accept major changes against the MS editor makes the final decision note copy editor s comments
Confidentiality A manuscript is a private matter until published Do not discuss any MS with other people than those directly involved in the process Need advice ask a colleague editor confidentially If you are the reviewer only discuss the MS with the editor never pass the MS to a colleague always return the material to the editor
Editors DO Communicate Surprising information to even established researchers EASE Mailing lists Congresses A recent example from my journal
Editor A Service Job with No Thanks EQUALITY AUTHOR REVIEWER JUDGEMENT EDITOR JUSTICE READER PUBLISHER INDEPENDENCE
In Other Words EDITOR...AND WRITER` S VIEW