Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics2

Overview on the (peer) review process

Objective: Provide quality insurance of published academic work

Reliable and credible body of research

Protection of academic reader who is not a narrow expert in the field

Means: Review by independent expertsAlmost always “single blind” (anonymity of

referees), often double blind (+ anonym. authors)Decision on publication by editor

Critique: process very slow and subject to failureTakes often more than a year from submission to

publication and rarely less than 6 monthsNot designed to detect fraud

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics3

Further critique and counter-arguments

Editors and referees could function as “gatekeepers” (process susceptible for jealousy and “turf protection”)

Process may suppress dissent against mainstream theories (editors pick established researchers as referees theory: the “better” the journal the more “mainstream”)

Referees tend to disagree with conclusions that conflict with their own views

Counter-arguments: A large number of journals make it difficult to

“control” scientific information by an elite Referees comment independently from each other

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics4

Critical views

Drummond Rennie (Deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and organizer of a regular congress on peer review and publication):

“There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print”

Ron Mittelhammer: “Never believe what is written black on white”

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics5

The (peer) review process

Author(s)

Referees (2 or 3)

Editor(associate editors)

(1) Submitmanuscript

(2a) Desk-Rejection if qualityor fit obviously poor

(2b) Recruitreferees

(3) Provide reports andrecommendation

(4) Write decision letter (acceptance, revision, rejection)

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics6

The author’s role

Before submission, check if own paper fits to scope of journal by visiting the journal’s website

Format paper according to the journal’s instructions to authors. Watch for

length limitations (including tables and figures) format of references, headings,…. (also to avoid

revealing a history of prior submission) Author should respond to each editor and referee

comment “bullet by bullet” Does not necessarily mean all suggestions are

implemented, but responses must be complete Identify clearly changes made in response to

editor’s and referees comments

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics7

The author’s role

Authors should communicate with editor if uncertainties on priorities of revision exist (decision letter not clear in resolving potential conflicts between referees’ comments)

Authors may ask editor to mediate communication with referees in case of problems with interpretation

Never take review personal…remember the critique of process…

Use neutral tone when responding (even if comments were nasty), but be clear on your stance

Invitation for resubmission is a success!When you get a rejection, work on the relevant

comments and submit to next journal (within a month)

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics8

The referee’s role

Referees should only agree to do the review if they expect to be able to do it in time do not unnecessarily prolong an already long process

Structure the review in “general comments” and “specific comments”

General issues to be addressed in a review Does the manuscript fit to the journal? Identify contribution of the manuscript to the literature

(theory, methodology, application) Do authors clearly identify the objective and the

contribution to the literature? Do they use the appropriate state-of-the-art methodology

to achieve the objective?

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics9

The referee’s role

General issues to be addressed…continued Is there a theory underlying the analysis and is it clearly

identified by the authors? Is the theory appropriate? Do the data used contain the information needed? Is the structure of presentation logical and appropriate? How is the length of the manuscript relative to

contribution Is style and spelling a general problem (NO EDITING!)?

Specific comments Refer to specific sections, paragraphs, sentences, words.

Go through the manuscript sequentially Identify all logical errors (insufficient clarity) in

arguments and derivations Are all symbols and acronyms explained and consistently

used

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics10

The referee’s role

Specific comments…continued Is the information provided in tables and graphs useful and

necessary? Are the tables and graphs self explanatory (are all contents

exactly described in headings and notes)? Are the conclusions drawn based on the analysis and

information provided? (could be a general comment if substance of conclusions are questioned)

General rule: What you don’t understand is likely not understood by majority of readers. Don’t be afraid to say something wrong – the authors can react

…

Use a neutral tone and don’t belittle authors or their research, but clearly express your view

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics11

The referee’s role Typically, one of the following four recommendations

have to be given TO EDITOR: Accept Accept with minor revision (sometimes only called “minor

revision”) Reject in its current form, but encourage resubmission

after major revision (sometimes called “major revision”) Outright reject

Only recommend “major revision” if you expect that problems can be solved without writing new paper

However, sometimes one does not know because information is not sufficient one can express in the letter to the editor to be “in between two choices”

Send extra letter with general comments and recommendation to editor (rec. do not go to author)

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role

Thomas Heckelei Publishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics12

The editor’s role

Makes decision on acceptance, rejection and priorities of revision

Mediates between authors and referees Is ultimately responsible to decide if the contribution

of the manuscript is sufficient for the journal’s ambition might imply rejection even if all referees recommend revision

Considerable differences exist between editors regarding how actively engaged they are in the review process. Extremes:

Just send along the referee’s comments and ask authors to react

Clearly set priorities for revision and resolve impossibilities and add own comments

Review process overview

Author’s role

Referee’s role

Editor’s role