A3.4. A3.4. SprijinSprijin acordatacordat tinerilortinerilor cercetatoricercetatori postdocpostdoc pentrupentruintarireaintarirea capacitatiicapacitatii de de autoratautorat stiintificstiintific

30.01.201230.01.2012

ProceduraProcedura Peer reviewPeer review

material adaptat dupa

M.Acalovschi, M. Hinescu, Coordonatele majore ale procedurii de tip peer-review, in “Manual de autorat stintific”, cood. I Dumitrache, H. Iovu, Ed. Politehnica Press, Bucuresti, 2011, p. 80-96

TipuriTipuri de peerde peer--reviewreview

• Articole stiintifice

• Propuneri de grant

• Abstracturi de conferinte

• Propuneri de carti

• Performanta academica individuala

• Performanta academica institutionala

– (evaluarea universitatilor)

– (performanta stiintifica a unei reviste)

• Performanta stiintifica a unei tari

TipuriTipuri de peerde peer--reviewreview‐ Evaluare „deschisă” – open peer review

Identitatea autorilor este cunoscută referenţilorPro: - greu de ascuns orice dovadă a identităţii autorilor / instituţiei;

-pentru unii referenţi este important să cunoască autorii şi locul unde a fost efectuat studiul.

Contra: - există riscul de acceptare a unor lucrări mai slabe (eroare de grad I) provenind din centre cu renume sau de respingere a unor lucrări valoroase (eroare de grad II) provenind din centre, sau redactate de către autori neucnoscuţi.

Identitatea referentului este cunoscută autorilor - mai recent întâlnită, şi mai cu seamă în publicarea online. Este obligatoriu ca referentul să accepte a-i fi dezvăluit numele.

Pro: - poate fi mărită corectitudinea procesului de evaluare.- pot fi identificate eventuale conflicte de interese nedeclarate (intelectual, financiar, politic etc).

Contra: - acest sistem poate reduce semnificativ numărul referenţilor care acceptă să evalueze o lucrare.

Evaluarea „netransparentă”, „mascată” (“blind” peer review)

Identitatea autorilor nu este dezvăluită referentului: Pro: - se reduce riscul de eroare subiectivă din partea referenţilor;Contra: - poate fi important pentru referenţi a fi cunoscut locul şi colectivul în care s-a

efectuat studiul.

Identitatea referentului nu este dezvăluită autorului ( “ single blind”). -situaţia comună (peste 80% din cazuri), şi este cea preferată de către referenţi.

Identitatea autorilor şi a referentului sunt necunoscute (“double blind” peer-review). -o modalitate mai rareori folosită.

Editorii sunt lăsaţi să opteze pe baza experienţei şi preferintelor personale pentru una sau cealaltă dintre alternative.

•O procedura imperfecta

•Cele mai importante 9600 de reviste din lume o folosesc!

•Nu poate fi ocolita (mini-ghid de supravietuire)

•Reguli clare (Nerespectarea = esec; urmarea nu inseamna

neaparat succes!)

•Decizia finala o ia o singura persoana INTOTDEAUNA!

•Aduce prestigiu pt autori (si bani pt. casele de editura!)

•Expertii in peer review NU sunt platiti!

PeerPeer--reviewreview

M. Ware, Peer review-Perceptions, benefits and alternatives, Publishing Research Consortium, London, 2008

• Do I understand it? Are the question and the methods clearly explained?

• Do I believe it? Are the conclusions justified by the data and are the

methods valid?

• Do I care? Is the question important and interesting?

• E. Wagner et al. How to survive Peer Review, BMJ Books, 2002

What to look for1. Appropriateness for the journal

• Is the topic relevant to the journal?

• Is the topic timely?

• Is the topic significant?

• Is the study unique? If so, How?

2. What type of paper/research is it?• If research, how is it structured?

– Randomized, controlled, blinded Meta-analysis?– Retrospective?– Case series or single case

Did the author follow the Instructions of the journal?

• Is the article format correct?– Structured abstract?– Correct article format (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion,

Conclusion, Refs?)– Are References in correct format?

Are the technical aspects correct?• Research Structure: Correctly described and performed?• Statistics:

– Correct analysis? – Accurate interpretation? – Clear presentation?

• Tables and Figures:

– Accurate and clear structure, presentation, and presentation?– Do the numbers add up?– Are the data consistent with the body of the paper?

• Accept - foarte rar• Reject ~ 60-80% din articolele trimise

• Revise – major or minor

T. M. Annesley, Top 10 Tips for Responding to Reviewer and Editor Comments, Clinical Chemistry 2011, 57:4, 551–554 .

1. Get Mad. Then Get Over It!

2. Consider What the Editor’s Decision Letter Really Says

3. Wait and Gather Your Thoughts

Take a fresh look at the comments to determine what the reviewers want to see in a revised paper. Classify reviewer comments, as follows:

-(1) requests for clarification of existing text, addition of text to fill a hole inthe paper, or additional experimental details;

(2) requests to reanalyze, reexpress, or reinterpret existing data;(3) requests for additional experiments or further proof of concept;(4) requests you simply cannot meet.

Three golden rules of responding to referees’ commentsRule 1. Answer completely

Rule 2. Answer politely

Rule 3. Answer with evidence4. Even If the Reviewer Is Wrong, It Does Not Mean You Are Right

5. Choose Your Battles Wisely

6. Do Not Pit One Reviewer against Another

7. Be Grateful for the Reviewers’ and Editor’s Time

8. Restate the Reviewer’s or Editor’s Comment When Responding

9. Be Prepared to Cut Text

10. Do Not Submit the Same Version to Another Journal

Response strategy: What should I do with the comments?

H. C. Williams, How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication, J Am AcadDermatol, 2004, 51, ( 1), 79-83.

Referees are human beings.

The secret of a successful resubmission is to make your referees feel valued without compromising your own standards.

Make your referees’ and editor’s life easy by presenting them with a clear numbered and structured response letter.

Provided you have made a good attempt at answering all of the referees’ comments in a reasonable way by following the 3 golden rules, many referees and editors are too weak at the stage of resubmission to open another round of arguments and resubmission.

In my experience, I spend up to 90 minutes on the initial refereeing of a manuscript, but only around 20 minutes on a resubmission.

However, if you miss some comments completely or your manuscript changes do not correspond with what you say you have done in your cover letter, this willentice your referee to spend hours going through your manuscript with a fine-tooth comb. If he/she finds lots of little errors, this leads to a possible deserved rejection.

Like a good marriage, resubmitting your manuscript in light of your referees’ comments is a process of give and take.