1 / 17

Cartoon by Nick D Kim, strange-matter Maria Kowalczuk, PhD

C onducting thorough and efficient peer review ‘Dos and don’ts of peer review’. Cartoon by Nick D Kim, strange-matter.net Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central. How do you know you have the right reviewers?.

amos
Télécharger la présentation

Cartoon by Nick D Kim, strange-matter Maria Kowalczuk, PhD

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. Conductingthorough and efficient peer review ‘Dos and don’ts of peer review’ Cartoon by Nick D Kim, strange-matter.net Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central

  2. How do you know you have the right reviewers? • Between them, they cover all aspects of the manuscript (subject area, methods, stats) • They don’t have an obvious conflict of interest (recently published with the authors, same inst.) • Not all have been suggested by the authors

  3. Author-suggested reviewers

  4. Author-suggested reviewers are positively biased • the quality of their reports is as good as the quality of editor-chosen reviewers, but • they are much more likely to recommend acceptance, and much less likely to recommend rejection. JAMA. 2006 Jan 18;295(3):314-7. SchroterS, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. BMC Medicine2006 May 30;4:13. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. PLoSOne. 2010 Oct 14;5(10):e13345. BornmannL, Daniel HD.

  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

  6. http://hgserver2.amc.nl/cgi-bin/miner/miner2.cgi

  7. http://scholar.google.co.uk/

  8. http://biosemantics.org/jane/

  9. A good referee • Provides a timely, objective and thorough report • Admits what aspects of the manuscriptthey are able to comment on • Doesn’t move the goalposts • Provides constructive criticism • Declares any conflicts of interest and ethical issues in confidential comments

  10. What to do when referees disagree • Find out why – difference in expertise, seniority, potential conflicts. • Are the concerns addressable? • Get a third referee • Ask an Advisor to adjudicate

  11. Decisions on one report • Last resort - you can’t get more reviews in reasonable time • The referee has commented on all aspects of the manuscript • You trust the referee – senior, has published recently on the topic

  12. Resources (1) • Editors’ Tools http://www.biomedcentral.com/editors/editorstools • Tools to find reviewers: • PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), • PubReMiner(http://hgserver2.amc.nl/cgi-bin/miner/miner2.cgi), • Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.co.uk), • JANE (http://biosemantics.org/jane/) • BMC Editorial Policies http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/editorialpolicies

  13. Resources (2) • COPE resources (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines), • COPE ethical guidelines for reviewers (http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf), • Code of Conduct for Editors-in-Chief of journals published by BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/editors/codeofconduct). • Biology and Medical Editors (http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/biomededitors)

  14. Thank you! Maria Kowalczuk, PhD Deputy Biology Editor, BioMed Central Maria.Kowalczuk@biomedcentral.com

More Related