Bjørn O. Mysen
The principal permanent record of our work as
scientists is publication in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Editors
facilitate the publication process that builds this record.
Here,
I will offer a few thoughts and observations from my own experience as an
editor by describing the normal process and role of the participants. I also
will show examples of what may not be uncommon, but is not acceptable.
Authors
and authorship
Each
and every author is responsible for the content of a manuscript. Most academic
institutions and journals have rules that govern authorship. For example, the
following excerpt from the guidelines of authorship of the Medical School of
Harvard University states that
"Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable. Acquisition of funding and provision of technical services, patients, or materials, while they may be essential to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship." (Source: Authorship Guidelines of the Medical School of Harvard University)
Similar rules can be found for most academic
institutions.
These
rules, however, frequently are ignored. In my experience, one of the most
glaringly inappropriate attempts at gaining undeserved authorship was a very
senior person demanding co-authorship of paper because as he put it “…I am
interested in the topic”. Other cases of ghost authorship include authorship
because the researchers used facilities of somebody not associated with the
project. There are also times when individuals who have done reading and
editing of manuscripts prior to submission demand authorship. There are also
cases where the senior researcher wants manuscript text changed because it
disagrees with earlier papers published with his or her name in the author list
and use seniority or membership in professional organizations as justification.
I have witnessed such incidents first hand. This behavior is unacceptable, but
it happens.
As
editors, we expect the authors to have done the very best they can with a
manuscript before its submission. Unfortunately, this is not always so. Authors
sometimes submit manuscripts to a journal with the comment that they will clean
it up after reviews. Also, in papers with multiple authors where an
early-career researcher is senior author and with more senior scientists as coauthors,
it is important that those latter authors provide of their time and knowledge
to ensure that a manuscript is ready for submission before this actually takes
place. Sometimes they do not. Both cases show lack of respect for the journal,
its reviewers, and its editorial staff. It also increases the possibility of
rejection.
The
submission process, authors, and peer review
In the submission process, the first editorial
step is to determine whether the manuscript’s topic is suitable for the
journal’s objectives. For example, some years ago as an editor of an earth and
planetary science journal I received a manuscript dealing with properties of
glass used for computer and television monitors. The topic was unsuitable for
the journal and as an editor I made that decision without further review. That
case was simple. Other cases can be less clear. A recent such example was a
manuscript submitted to an earth science-centric journal describing the
equation-of-state of NaCl. At first glance, the high-pressure behavior of
crystalline NaCl might not seem important or relevant for our understanding of
the Earth’s interior and, therefore, might be unsuitable for the particular
journal. However, the NaCl equation-of-state is important for calibration of
high-pressure/-temperature equipment used to examine physics and chemistry of
deep earth materials. This makes the manuscript on NaCl suitable. The
manuscript was accepted.
The
editor’s main role is as manager of and judge during the review process. The
editor will choose reviewers whose interests and expertise cover the specific
technical aspects of an article as well broader implications. We also try to
find reviewers from different age groups and cultural backgrounds in order to reach
balance.
The
peer review process is also the most difficult and time consuming step of the
publication process and often governs the total time from manuscript submission
to publication. It is also where the authors and reviewers can be very helpful
in reducing this time. In order to keep
that time to a minimum, potential reviewers are asked to respond to a request
or invitation within a small number of days (a week or less is typical)
followed by a fixed time within which a review is expected to be finished
(typically three or four weeks). In situations where reviewer comments differ
significantly, the editor may choose an additional review over the number
commonly used. That step also adds time to the review process. When all reviews
are in, the editor has perhaps a week to assess the reviews and return those to
the authors together with his or her own comments. There also are times when an
editor may choose a different manuscript disposition than that which may be
recommended by the reviewers.
Occasionally
we offer suggestions to the authors in order to improve and clarify the
presentation. Sometimes we help with language problems, in particular if the
journal’s language (usually English) differs from the author’s first language.
We are quite sensitive to this issue so as not to place any author at a disadvantage.
Occasionally, I may return a manuscript to authors before review requesting the
authors to look for language assistance before proceeding with the submission.
This can be helpful for all involved, including reviewers who may not want to
spend the extra time to interpret descriptions that may not be clear.
Remember
that, in principle, results of peer reviews are advisory. The decision of how
to proceed, or not, lies with the editor. Most journals provide the opportunity
for rebuttal. Short, succinct, objective, and well-reasoned rebuttals can be
very helpful as the next step of the process is decided. Long-winded or
personal attacks by authors or reviewers during rebuttal are not helpful and can
also be counterproductive. The worst example that I have had as an editor was a
suggestion by a very senior and well-known professor who got in trouble with
the comments from one of the reviewers that I, the editor, must have a
relationship with the reviewer! You can safely assume that this comment did not
have a positive impact on the outcome.
A
second round of revision is quite common. That happens more than 50% of the
time. Additional reviews after the first round less common. An editor may
choose this venue only if he/she cannot make a decision on an issue raised by
reviewers and discussed without success with the authors.
The
worst-case scenario is rejection. A rejection can happen at any stage of the
process. Examples of late rejections are
those where authors refuse to make changes or corrections required by the
editor. This has happened to me as an editor and I know others also have had
this experience. However, authors sometimes seem to believe that an editor’s
decision for rejection is open to argument between the author(s) and the
editor. Much time can be spent. Little is gained because editors extremely
rarely will change their decision.
A few journals do not offer authors the
opportunity of rebuttal or discussion of reviewer comments. The reasons for
this policy are not clear. It may increase the speed of publication, but it is
unhelpful for the authors and unhelpful for the science objectives. Such a
review process also can lead to articles being rejected for reasons other than
scientific quality. This mechanism also encourages establishment of cliques
whose members look after one another through the reviews. Sadly, some of these
journals have very high impact factors, which can be a consideration during and
author’s job placement or promotion. This situation is unhelpful for both the
scientists/authors and their chosen field of scientific pursuit.
The peer review process with discussion and clarification among authors and editors is the best we got. We cannot do our job as editors properly without your cooperation, understanding and generously volunteering your time as authors and reviewers. The process cannot function it.
 |
Dr. Bjørn O. Mysen, Editor of Solid earth sciences Section,
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington,USA |
