Revista Americana de Medicina Respiratoria - Volumen 15, Número 4 - Marzo 2015

Cómo Escribir un Artículo Científico

The Submission Process from the Point of View of the Editorial Office

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 18^th 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 editors^{1, 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.

References

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.