Peer Review Week 2020

You are on the right track. Comments such as “it was a good study, a bad study, or whatever” is just what the editor has in mind.So, if we understand you right, you submitted a review article to a journal, the article has been refereed, and the editor has got back to you with suggestions for revision. In your review article, you must have cited a number of papers and commented on the significance of the findings of each paper or groups of papers. You placed the findings of the cited papers in context, related them to the body of knowledge on the topic of your review, and, more importantly, assessed them in the light of your knowledge, experience, and judgment. This is exactly what writers of review papers are expected to do (in contrast to writers of original contributions reporting on first-hand research).Apparently, in your review, you missed out some relevant studies—studies that in the eyes of the editor need to be covered in your review. So, the task before you is to deal with those studies the same way as you dealt with other studies that you did cover in your review, commenting on their relevance, significance, methodology,...

23 days is neither too long nor too short for the completion of peer review. It could be considered an average amount of time. In fact, given that it’s a Springer-based journal, it probably happened quite fast. However, the timeline is no real indication of the initial decision over the paper. The turnaround time could also be a reflection of the subject area or topic of the paper and/or the availability of the reviewers. Having said that, it probably means a major or minor revision in this case. You should know in a few days. Presently, the Associate Editor (AE) will go through the reviewer comments and make their decision on the paper. Based on that, they may update the status or discuss it with the Editor-in-Chief (EiC). As the status has been getting updated at regular intervals in this case, the next status should happen soon. Based on the various points discussed here, we have shared a variety of resources that you may find helpful. Do have a look. A guide to understanding journal statuses [Handbook] Peer review process and editorial decision making at journals How to respond to comments by peer reviewers And of course, all the best...

Papers to journals are typically screened in two stages. The first, a preliminary check, is to see whether the paper deserves to be sent for reviewing. This check, by the journal’s editors, is aimed not so much at the paper’s substance and its science – which is for reviewers who are experts in the topic of the paper – as its suitability for the journal. The editor wants to know whether the paper fits the journal’s policy and scope and is of suitable length, whether it is of potential interest to the journal’s readers, whether the writing is reasonably clear and correct, and whether it conforms to the journal’s instructions to authors. Papers that fail these tests are ‘desk rejected’, that is, rejected without review; papers that pass these tests are sent out for reviewing to two or more reviewers (referees). Once the editor receives the referees’ reports, the editor reads them to see whether they are in broad agreement; whether they represent a fair, unbiased, and critical assessment; and whether they are in a form suitable to be conveyed to the author. The final stage is when the editor looks at the revised version of the paper (if the...

Your question is so pithy and pointed, we shall also get to the response straight away.Unfortunately, no, there isn't any higher organization in research publishing for any kind of complaint, not just for peer reviews, but even for other matters of conflict such as coauthorship issues and plagiarism. There are several industry bodies, such as International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), that provide a lot of guidance and direction, but you cannot register a dispute with them. In most cases, journals are the mediators or decision-makers, as the case may be.So, if you have received a malicious peer review, it would be best to discuss this with the journal editor, unless of course you fear a repercussion, either to your manuscript or to yourself. If it helps, you may wish to involve a senior/supervisor, who could either guide you or correspond/communicate on your behalf.Having said that, we would suggest proceeding in either or both of the following ways.Firstly, take a step back or even a short break. Keep aside the review comments for a few days. When you get back to them after some days, hopefully, you are feeling less agitated. Or to put it...

Hello Annie – Welcome to the forum! And this time, we respond with a bit more seriousness. :-) Straight away, what a great position to be in! I don’t think we’ve heard of too many such stories, whether in the forum, on the site, or even outside. So, congrats for that – even if it’s a bit preemptive. And we say that because you haven’t said anything about the other comments. But the vibe does seem to be overall positive, and hopefully, you are one step closer to publication. :-) [Our smiley count for this response might just end up rivalling the positive comments for your paper. :-)] Anyway, coming to your query in greater earnest, you could say thanks for a couple of comments, but it might get repetitive after some. [In which case, you could then begin by replying with smileys. :-)] More seriously, for some, you could respond with some inputs or insights from your side. Obviously, the reviewers are from your field, and the fact that they have responded positively means that you all may have more knowledge and information to share with each other around the topic. But don’t force it. Where you feel you can’t...