Scientific Publishing, Flakkebjerg, September 1 st, 12: 30 -15: 30 Reviewing scientific papers Bo Melander Department of Integrated Pest Management, Research Centre Flakkebjerg AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
My background 20 years in agricultural research Area of expertise Physical and cultural weed control methods Weed ecology Subject editor for Weed Research, 5 th year 5 -7 manuscripts per year First response: 20% accepted, 60% reject & resubmission (<50% are resubmitted), 20% rejected Accept Minor revision Reject & resubmit Reject AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
When receiving a manuscript Forwarded by the editor in chief Is the subject within the scope of the journal? Weed harrowing but no plants A first glance before selecting reviewers Selection of reviewers, 1 -3 but mostly 2 Expertise Availability, can be a big problem! No clash of interests Same nationality? Bad ’chemistry’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
Reviewing process Reporting within a month – voluntarily work Large variation in the quality of reviewing Discrepancy between the reports, one recommends acceptance the other rejection Subject editor makes the final decision AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? Is the paper well prepared? Well organised? English readable? Many are offering writing assistance at a reasonable price Does it follow the house style of the journal? Character, type size and spacing Abbreviations, symbols and nomenclature Scientific names Tables and Figures Reference citations & reference list Take a look in author guidelines and in papers already published Never forward a paper edited according to the house style of another journal!! AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? The summary Background Objective Materials & methods Main results Implications for science & practise A lot in 200 words! AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? The Introduction Background Is the problem clearly and consisely explained with references to the most recent and relevant litterature? The perennial weed species Elymus repens has increased in organic farming bla bla Rationale What is the idea behind the research undertaken? Where is the lack in knowledge - novelty? What are the hypotheses? What are the likely benefits? Traditional stubble cultivation to control E. repens conflicts with nutrient handling and E. repens should be controlled over a short period bla bla. There is a need to develop a strategy that bla bla AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? The Introduction Objective Precise, unambiguous and consise To investigate the effect of 3 new strategies against E. repens that meets the rquirements bla bla AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? Materials & Methods Are the experiments clearly explained? Can it be repeated by others? Is the work scientifically sound Is the statistics correct? AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? Materials & Methods Is the work scientifically sound? Typical mistakes Not enough replicates Experiments not repeated in time and space Lack of information about the pests to be controlled (example: steaming in forestry) Lack of information about the treatments applied, (date, energy applied, driving speed etc. ) Strange changes of the experimental environment (example: E. repens control) No lessons learned from similar studies, significant errors could have been avoidedm (example: flame weeding) AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? Materials & Methods Is the statistics correct? ? Typical mistakes Inadequately explained number of replicates transformation distribution of data unbalanced or balanced data Analyses of variances vs. Regression analyses Quantitative vs. qualitative variables (example: steaming in forestry) Split-plot and split-plot designs Tests of main plots and sub-sub-plots Lack of co-variance analyses AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? Results Clear and stringent presentation of results Good balance between figures and tables Are the main findings highlighted? Are the highlighted results justified by the data? AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
What are we looking for? Discussion Relations to other studies Critical reflection on the results Where are the findings leading? Further research needed? AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
Major reasons for rejection Lack of novelty Lack of repetition in time and/or space Wrongly conducted treatments Lack of significant information – the results are not reproducible Incorrect statistics, can normally be solved Extremely poor manuscript: poor English, poor structure, lack of clarity AARHUS UNIVERSITY Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management
Скачать презентацию Scientific Publishing Flakkebjerg September 1 st 12 30
11f61663de7b94b537c7e6bfe05d2fea.ppt