Autor : Tatsuya Okada, Takako Kojima1, J. Patrick Barron2
Marketing Group, Division of Society Management Services, Sales Department, Kyorinsha Co., Ltd. 1 Assistant Professor, Department of International Medical Communications, Tokyo Medical University 2 Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Medical University
Correspondencia : Takako Kojima E-mail: takako97kojima@gmail.com
Series Item 4
*The next few articles in this series will focus on the perspective of the editorial office.
Introduction
This paper sets out to describe the general ideas and precepts concerning the roles and functions of the editorial office throughout the submission and reviewing process. While this should give readers a general idea on how manuscripts are handled after submission, you should also be aware that each journal has its own policies, roles, and responsibilities. Thus it is important to read the Instructions to Authors of your target journal
What is peer review?
Peer review is the system of reviewing manuscripts
to ensure the scientific validity and value of a scientific paper based on reviews by other experts in the
same area of research. This is the most common
method used by scientific journals and has been
employed at least since the early 18th century.
Reviewers, also known as referees, are usually
unpaid volunteers who are not members of the
editorial board. Their main responsibility is to
read the manuscripts and provide their feedback
to the editors. Their opinions and comments are
expected to be fair and constructive, which can
help the editors making review decisions and help
the authors improve their text. In addition to giving their scientific evaluation of the manuscripts,
reviewers are responsible for informing the editors
if they have any ethical concerns regarding the
manuscripts. Any concerns are reported to the
editors for further investigation.
Searching for reviewers is begun immediately
after completion of primary screening by the editors, once it has been agreed that the manuscript
meets the concept and the scope of the journal
and its readership. The search for reviewers is
an important part of the peer review process and
can involve contacting acquaintances of the editor,
using research databases, referring to the list of
manuscripts cited in the paper, and selecting names from the list of possible reviewers which may
have been made by the authors in the cover letter.
Eliminating or minimizing bias in the review
process is critical for a fair review. Generally, the
process is “single-blinded” in order to increase
the level of unbiased peer review. This means that
the reviewers of the manuscript are anonymous.
There is also “double-blinded” reviewing in which
both the authors and reviewers are mutually
anonymous. Some journals employ an “open” reviewing process in which reviewers and authors
are notified as to each other’s names and affiliations. In some “open” review process journals, the
reviewers are also listed in the journal. Regardless
of the review process adopted by the journal the
reviewers and authors are forbidden from direct
contact with each other.
What are the roles and functions of the editorial office?
The fundamental role of the editorial office is to
provide administrative support to the editors and
to coordinate the submission, reviewing, editing,
and production process.
During the submission process, the editorial
office checks the submitted manuscript for its formats, such as the title page, word count, reference
styles, figure sizes, and table formatting. Once this check is completed, the manuscript is sent to
the editors. The editors select possible reviewers,
to whom the editorial office sends review invitations. The office is also responsible for collecting
the review comments from those reviewers, which
are forwarded to the editors, or Editor-in-Chief
(EIC), who will make a decision on manuscript
assessment. Once a decision on the manuscript is
made, the editorial office sends the decision letters
to the authors.
After the manuscript is accepted for publication,
the editorial office works closely with the production team, who are specialized in preparing the
manuscript for publication. The editorial office
coordinates with the production team for copyediting, the publishing schedule, and prepares
galley proofs to be shown to the author, which show
how the paper will appear when published in the
journal. The galley proofs are sent by the editorial
office to the author to confirm the contents and to
check on information such as names, institutional
affiliations, text, references etc. of the manuscript.
Should any corrections be necessary, the editorial
office contacts the production team to ensure the
changes are made before publication.
Besides the operations described above, there
are many other tasks the editorial office performs,
which include updating the journal’s website,
organizing the editorial board meetings, and preparing statistical data for editorial and publication
quality analysis. The editorial office also answers
any questions and inquiries from the authors,
reviewers, and editors. If inquiries about journal policies, ethical issues concerning the authors and
reviewers, or any appeals to the decision letter are
received, the messages are forwarded to the EIC,
who will make the appropriate decisions along with
the editorial board.
What happens to the manuscript after submission?
The general manuscript review process is shown
in the Figure. The editorial office administrators
check the manuscripts to see if they have adhered
to the “Instructions to Authors” or any journal guidelines for manuscript preparation. Items checked
include: authors’ names, affiliations, word counts,
figure sizes, and numbers, and art work (tables and
figures) information. At this point, the editorial
office administrators also check the cover letter
to see if there is any specific information editors
should be made aware of. In addition, required
forms such as copyright agreement, confirmation
of authorship, conflict of interest (COI), patients’ privacy protection, etc. are also reviewed.
If any formatting errors are found in the above, the manuscript is labeled “unsubmitted” and
returned to the author, which results in extra
time being required before manuscript review.
It is, therefore, critical for the authors to read
and follow the “Instructions for Authors” before
manuscript submission. At this point, the EIC or
managing editor, or assistant, checks the content
once more to ensure the scope of the manuscript
and the basic scientific quality.
Referee review
The number of reviewers who are called upon to
provide a fair and constructive review can vary
according to the journal. After all comments are
collected, the EIC, associate editor, or editorial
board also reviews the manuscript to reach a final
decision. Should two reviewers have totally opposite opinions, e.g. if one reviewer chooses “accept” while another choses “reject”, the editor might
seek an additional reviewer for an extra opinion.
In general, there are up to four types of decisions.
They are A) Accept, B) Major revision C) Minor revision (or both), and D) Reject. “Accept” means that
the manuscript is accepted for publication. It is extremely rare for a manuscript to be accepted without
any revision whatsoever. “(Major/Minor) Revision” requires corrections or revisions as instructed by the
reviewers and editors. Once the necessary revisions
are made, the manuscript can be re-submitted with
point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments. If a manuscript receives a “Reject” decision, it generally means that you are not welcomed
to re-submit the manuscript to the same journal,
unless otherwise instructed in the decision letter.
If the rejection letter suggests that you submit
to another journal, this is definite confirmation
that you cannot resubmit your paper. In extremely rare cases, when the author feels that the
reviewers have missed the scope or main point
of the paper, they can ask for a re-review but this
happens in probably less than 1% of all papers.
Can I list specific reviewers with whom I feel comfortable or uncomfortable?
The answer to this question is ‘Yes’. There are
even journals that require authors to identify some
potential reviewers during the submission process.
Even if suggesting reviewers is not required, if
you have someone whom you feel comfortable or
uncomfortable reviewing your manuscript, then
you should address this matter in the cover letter.
The policy concerning reviewers depends on the
journal, so it is important to check the information
for authors before making a submission. Also, you
should be aware that the decision to invite, or not
invite, the suggested reviewers will be made at the
discretion of the editors
To increase the chances of having your suggestions of reviewers considered by the editors, you should include the reviewers’ names, institutional
affiliations, contact information (e-mail address),
and most importantly the reason(s) why you recommend, or do not recommend them, to review
your manuscript.
Reasons given for selecting potential reviewers
can include the well-known reputation of the reviewer in the research field. On the other hand,
when asking to exclude specific reviewers or institutions for review, it is particularly important to
give reasons that the journals can understand. For
example, a past publication and research history
indicating strong opposition to the ideas proposed
in the paper or previous disagreements at scientific
meetings, to the point where the author feels it
unlikely that this specific reviewer, or group, would
give an objective review. Regardless, providing the
rationale for your recommendation to select or
avoid specific reviewers can help the editors choose
the most appropriate reviewers for an unbiased,
fair, and constructive review of your manuscript.
Some studies show that author-suggested reviewers are more likely to give favorable recommendations for publication. At the same time, it
has been found that author-suggested reviewers’ recommendations do not significantly affect the
decisions made by the editors1, 2. You should keep
in mind that it is the content of the manuscript
itself, more than who reviews your manuscript,
together with point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments that determine whether your
manuscript will be accepted for publication.
What are the differences between Subscription-based Publishing and Open Access?
The major difference between subscription-based
publishing and open access (OA) journal subscription-based publishing is that in subscription-based
publishing, the readers must pay subscription or
pay-per-view fees to read journal’s articles. On
the other hand, OA publishing allows anyone with
internet access to read the articles3.
In subscription-based publishing, the journals
cover their operation costs, such as printing, publishing, marketing, and administrative costs by
selling journal subscriptions to the readers, such
as individual researchers, libraries, and research
institutions. In OA, the journals’ operation costs
are mainly covered by manuscript processing fees that are charged to the author4. In addition, there
are ‘hybrid’ journals, which allow the author to
choose their manuscript to be published subscription-based without any processing fees, or OA with
processing fees5.
The processing fee varies according to the
journal. There are few journals that do not charge any fees, but there are some that charge over
$3,000. So when choosing a journal, the authors
should take the publication style and options into
consideration.
In addition, some journals have a two- or threetiered system whereby they charge according to
the Gross National Product (GNP) of the country
where the main author’s affiliation is located.
The advantages of OA include the fact that
immediately upon publication your paper becomes freely available to billions of people through
the Web. This, in turn, can increase the chance of
recognition of your manuscript in the scholarly
community. According to Eysenbach, articles
published through the OA system are more likely
to be cited earlier and more frequently than
subscription-based publication journals4. However
another study showed that OA articles had a two-
year citation average of approximately 30-40% less
than subscription-based articles3. While the OA
trend in scientific journal publishing is relatively
new compared to the traditional subscriptionbased publishing process, authors should keep in
mind these differences and its changing trends,
when choosing which type of journal to submit to in order to obtain maximum scientific impact.
In addition to these fundamental differences in
characteristics, authors should be aware that some
research grants, especially from the U.S. Federal
Government, require that authors submit their
research results to OA journals, to make the infor-
mation accessible to as wide a range of people as
possible, including U.S. taxpayers, in the scholarly
community. If your research involves any grant
or financial support, even from any non-profit or
government entities, you should make sure with
the provisions of the grant whether there are relevant requirements on how the manuscript should
be published.
Conflict of interest: TO is an employee of Kyorinsha.
1. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS ONE 2010;5(10): e13345.
2. Moore JL, Nielson EG, Siegel V; Associate Editors at the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Effect of Recommendations from Reviewers Suggested or Excluded by Authors. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;22:1598-1602.
3. Björk BC, Solomon D. Open Access versus Subscription Journals: A Comparison of Scientific Impact. BMC Medicine 2012;10:73.
4. Eysenbach G. Citation Advantage of Open Access Artibles. PLoS Biology 2006;4(5):e157.
5. Laasko M, Björk BC. Anatomy of Open Access Publishing: A Study of Longitudinal Development and Internal Structure. BMC Medicine 2012;10:124.