Publons Academy Module 3

What Journals Want

[slide 1]
Welcome to the What Journals Want module where we aim to make your engagement with
journal editors more fruitful.

[slide 2]
We are going to help you:

Develop an understanding of peer review from the journal editors’ point of view
understand the importance of clear and timely communication between reviewer and the
journal.
give you best practice tips on providing the most useful reviews
discuss how peer review can enhance your career

If you can align yourself with the interests of editors and gain their regard as a reviewer, you
are more likely to become a valued member of their journal community.

[slide 3]
Until now we have considered peer review from the point of view of reviewers, and the
feedback you give to editors and authors.

We will now switch to the journal editors’ perspective.

[slide 4]
It is probably true to say that most editors have mixed motives – they take on the
commitment of editorial work because of several different goals and pressures.

Some of these goals may overlap with yours:

● They may want to be involved with an academic discipline in a genuine and full
manner.
● help others in the academic field
● push their intellectual discipline in a particular direction.
● develop an area which is currently not well served by existing journals.
● Or to achieve a leadership position within an academic discipline.

[slide 5]
Journals are looking to publish high quality research, and many look for papers which
contribute something novel or significant to the body of scientific knowledge.

A community of perceptive and skilled peer reviewers to draw upon, to provide guidance to
editors and authors, helps to sharpen the papers submitted, attracting even more
high-quality research.
Editors are aware that they are reliant upon reviewers. It is not just a question of finding
anyone who will undertake the work – the real challenge is to find someone who
understands the academic standards, what is genuinely innovative, and what makes a paper
readable.

[slide 6]
One of our goals at Publons is to speed up the reviewing process. If you are able to respond
to journal editors with timeliness and commitment to review, you will be playing your part
in speeding up science.

Reviewers who can meet deadlines, provide constructive feedback, and can communicate
clearly are well sought after by editors.

Unfortunately, these types of reviewers are often very busy themselves, so securing their
help is hard. Editors often send many requests to different people, before securing
reviewers for a paper. This means review times for articles can end up being several months
long.

[slide 7]
Editors rely on peer reviewers to comment on the quality of the research, whether the
research is scientifically sound, and whether it should be published in their journal.

If you can provide a service to journals, as a reliable individual; capable of providing

One of the advantages of being a reviewer is that you are initiated into the perspectives of
the journal and the editors, and naturally these become a part of your thinking about your
own papers.

[slide 8]
Whether you are an author, a reviewer or an editor you should be aware of the dynamics in
play, derived from the perspectives we have spoken about.

Communication plays an integral role in this dynamic, so we will look now at some ways in
which you can best interact with the journals you review for.

[slide 9]
There are several things to consider when responding to a request to review a paper:

● Check the title, the abstract, and the deadline for submission – to see whether you
have the knowledge to review it and can achieve it in the time available.
● Notify the editor immediately if you are able, or unable, to review.
● If you are unavailable, suggest some names of potential replacement reviewers.
 ● If you are unable to meet the deadline the journal requires, but you are willing to
review, let the Editor know; they may grant you an extension.
● Declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline to review if any conflicts exist.

[slide 10]
This should only take 5-10 minutes. An immediate response is the most helpful thing you
can do for an editor at this stage. If you cannot review but do not respond, you may slow
the review process down by several weeks.

A response allows the editor to know whether or not they need to send additional requests
to other reviewers, or whether they can be assured that the process of peer review has
indeed started for this article.

If your circumstances change during review, inform the Editor. Journal editors understand
that situations and time frames change, but it can be particularly frustrating if they are not
aware of this and receive little communication apart from a missed deadline

[slide 11]
Some additional key considerations to make during your review are:

First, prepare to review by referring to journal guidelines. These may guide you on what to
comment on, such as the aims & scope of the journal, and the level of novelty required for
acceptance.

[slide 12]
Second, when you agree to a review you will have access to the review-submission system,
such as the widely used ScholarOne, Editorial Manager, or the open source OJS system.

This journal has a checklist form, asking you to rate the manuscript on several measures,
provide private comments to the Editor, comments to be sent to the authors, and options
for you to make a decision recommendation.

[slide 13]
Highlight any ethical concerns with the research conduct, analysis or presentation of data.

And last, but not least, of course – provide constructive feedback on the manuscripts’
strengths and weaknesses.

[slide 14]
In your contact with the editors, be professional and considerate, clear and concise, and
don’t be afraid to ask for clarification if there are aspects of their communication that you
do not understand.

Part of being professional in your communication involves proof-reading your work before
you send it off. This includes both emails to editors and comments to authors. Authors
appreciate reviews that are well structured, free of errors, are succinct and show that you
have taken the care and time to properly consider their article.

[slide 15]
Peer review is an essential part of the publishing process, and you will gain in confidence as
you complete more and more reviews.

The reward for you will be an improvement in your academic writing as you spend more
time observing others’ styles, identifying what makes a clear and helpful article, and seeing
ideas expressed in ways different to how you might usually express them.

[slide 16]
Journals also want to build and develop expertise in their subject area and advance their
field and would welcome your involvement in community activities.

The easiest way to be involved with your discipline is to hold membership of the appropriate
professional or academic society, attend conferences regularly and produce papers for
those conferences.

It is through your attendance at conferences that you will meet editors, appreciate their
needs and even make friends of them. This is rewarding in itself but it also contributes to
you gaining presence in your community.

[slide 17]
Now let’s summarise the process of peer review from the point of view of the journal.

[slide 18]
Journals are extremely grateful for the time and effort that reviewers contribute to
improving academic articles.

Journals are looking for a wide range of subject experts that are available, experienced in
peer review, and confident in communicating clearly.

Authors often comment that the peer review process is slow and frustrating, but equally is
the deciding factor in which journal they choose to publish in.

Editors rely on peer reviewers to decide promptly if they are able to complete a review, to
comment clearly on the scientific soundness of the article, and to meet the timeframes
given.

Communicating clearly and professionally with editors is essential – it is important to keep