How Does Peer Review Work?

3 downloads 503 Views 435KB Size Report
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY July/August 2008, Vol. 79/No. 6 ... radiologic sci- ences program, in Shreveport, ... in the peer-reviewed portion of Radiologic.
..............................................................................................................

Writing & Research

How Does Peer Review Work? Laura Aaron, PhD, R.T.(R)(M)(QM), is the program director and an associate professor at Northwestern State University radiologic sciences program, in Shreveport, Louisiana.

“Writing & Research” discusses issues of concern to writers and researchers in the radiologic sciences and is written by members of the Editorial Review Board. Comments and suggestions should be sent to [email protected].

Submitting a manuscript for potential publication in a journal can be a daunting task. As technologists, we have been educated on imaging procedures, patient care and a variety of other clinically related areas, but many of us have received little, if any, information regarding publication. Sometimes the unknown can make the process more stressful and frustrating. In an effort to make the process more transparent, an explanation of peer review might be beneficial. So what is the process that a manuscript goes through before it is published in the peer-reviewed portion of Radiologic Technology? First, it is important to consider what “peer review” means. Peer review is a process by which a manuscript is reviewed and evaluated by experts in the field. The peer-review process has been used in science and medicine for many years to establish standards and assess manuscripts.1 There have been some criticisms of the process, but it also has been described as “indispensable.”2 All manuscripts published in the peer-reviewed portion of Radiologic Technology are original works that have been reviewed, evaluated and accepted by members of the Editorial Review Board. The Editorial Review Board is a group of radiologic science professionals who volunteer their time and expertise to review and evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Currently, 13 members with a wide variety of expertise and publication experience serve on the Editorial Review Board. When a manuscript is submitted to Radiologic Technology, it goes through a “double-blind” process. Double-blind means that all references to the author are removed from the manuscript and that the reviewers are not known to the authors. Before reviewers ever see the manuscript, the author’s name and affiliation are removed from the manuscript. In addition, any references in the text to specific institutions or author identity are removed. This is done to help ensure that

RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY July/August 2008, Vol. 79/No. 6

no preferential treatment is given based on who the author is or any affiliations the author might have. When the author receives the reviewers’ evaluations of the manuscript, comments and recommendations are provided with a reviewer number instead of the reviewer’s name. The biggest disadvantage of using a double-blind process is the time it takes to process and evaluate submissions. Because manuscripts have to be blinded and reviewed before being published, the process sometimes seems very slow — especially if you are the author waiting to hear about the status of your manuscript. Bias is another concern with the peerreview process. Each of us has our own preconceived notions. When we read anything, we look at it from our point of view. Although reviewers try to put their biases aside during a review, it is impossible to eliminate this element completely. One of the main purposes of peer review is to identify flawed research; however, it is possible for errors to be missed. It also is important to remember that peer review does not confirm the validity of the research; it attempts to find errors and evaluate the research presented, but peer review is not a perfect process. After a manuscript is submitted, the first step in the review process is to blind the manuscript. Next, the chairman of the Editorial Review Board reviews the document and assigns 2 reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. The reviewers use a standard checklist to review the manuscript, and they make comments and recommendations. This checklist reviews all of the important aspects of the manuscript: title, abstract, introduction, literature review, research methods, results, discussion, limitations, conclusions, format, tables, graphs, illustrations and references. (Prospective authors can review the requirements for each section in the “Guide for Authors” at www.asrt.org > Publications > Publication Resources > Guide For Authors. After the reviewers evaluate the manuscript, they forward their comments and 553

.............................................................................................................. writing & research

recommendations to the chairman of the Editorial Review Board. Sometimes the reviewers have very different opinions about the manuscript. In such cases, the chairman may bring in an additional reviewer to provide another evaluation. Based on the comments and recommendations, the chairman makes a decision to accept, reject or request revisions. The decision, as well as the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, are forwarded to the author for review. Most manuscripts submitted to Radiologic Technology are not accepted on the first submission. It is more likely that revisions will be requested from the author. The requested revisions might be minimal or quite extensive. When revisions are requested, the author has 3 months to complete the edits and resubmit the document. When authors submit their revisions, they can respond to any of the reviewers’ comments that they decided not to address in the revision. Although manuscripts might not be accepted after revisions are submitted, authors who closely follow the reviewers’ comments will have more success in having their manuscript accepted upon resubmission. The document is then sent back to the original reviewers for a second review. At this point, reviewers can recommend acceptance, further revision or reject the manuscript. Manuscripts can be rejected for a variety of reasons, but some of the most common are: n The topic is not appropriate for the Journal. n The idea is not original. n The information is of limited value. n There are flaws in the research methods. n The survey results are invalid. Manuscripts usually are published within 6 to 12 months of final acceptance. The length of time until publication depends on how many accepted manuscripts are waiting to be published. Each manuscript also is edited by the editors of the Journal. After the editors have edited your manuscript, you are sent a proof for review. At this time, you have the opportunity to approve any changes that have been made to your manuscript. It is also possible that the editor may have some questions for you. You will respond to these at this time. When your article is published, each author will receive additional complimentary copies of the article. Another benefit of publishing a peer-reviewed article is continuing education credits. Authors can apply for up to 10 continuing education credits for publishing a peer-reviewed article. This is prorated if there are multiple authors for the article. 554

Although the peer-review process is complex, it is our hope that an understanding of the process will make it easier to navigate. The members of the Editorial Review Board are here to help you with the process and to answer any questions you might have about your manuscript and the peer-review process. We look forward to your submissions and hope that, in the future, you will see your name published as the author of a peerreviewed article. Happy writing! ◆

References

1. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1323-1329. 2. Kassirer JP, Campion, EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96-97.

July/August 2008, Vol. 79/No. 6 RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY