Academia 101: Publishing (Part 2)
When I started my academic journey there was a lot that I didn't understand - academic processes can be very confusing to the uninitiated! This Academia 101 blog series will provide guidelines for basic academic concepts for new PhD students (or anyone else new to academia).
So, you’ve submitted your manuscript to a journal, now what? In this blog, we look at what happens after submission: the review process. Peer-review is an essential part of academic publishing and an important process to ensure that published work is of a high standard. At its best, the peer review process can help to improve your work and make it more robust, however it can also be a frustrating experience when you encounter reviewers who are biased, negligent or even outright cruel (the notorious “reviewer 2”). The important thing to remember is that reviewers are just people; some of them are constructive and helpful, others are…less so. You don’t have to (and probably shouldn’t) take reviews too personally, and don’t let a bad review deter you from publishing your work. Here we detail each step of the review process and what to expect.
“Reviewers are just people; some of them are constructive and helpful, others are…less so”
First Review: Following assessment by the editor you article may be sent for review to other experts in your field. This is often termed that your manuscript is 'in review' or 'under review' for publication. This means that the editor thought your work was right for the journal’s focus and will be assessed for its validity and correctness in the field. Once several reviewers have reviewed the document, it will return to you with a decision on the manuscript. You will not get to find out the reviewers’ names, as this process is conducted anonymously (usually).
The decisions can then be one of the following four:
1) Accept as is - the best outcome. This means that the reviewers concluded that your work was sound, well conducted, and appropriately concluded. No changes are needed to be made and the manuscript will be processed for publication by the journal. Note: this is extremely rare. I have only had 3 reviewers in my entire career decide that my work needed no corrections. So, if you get this be very happy and take it as a compliment of your work.
2) Accept after minor corrections - The reviewers think that your work is valid and worthy of publication, but they have some suggestions for improvements. Again, take this as a compliment – your work is good, but there are some ways you could make it better. At this stage, you have to consider all comments by the reviewer, make appropriate changes to your manuscript, and incorporate changes that you and your co-authors agree to. This may involve further experiments, analysis, or re-assessment of results. Note: not all changes need to be made if you have a good reason not to make the changes. Reviewers are only human and don't always get everything right.
3) Accept after major corrections - Do not fear. This happens. It simply means that the reviewers want you to substantiate more of your claims or clarify your work further. Again, try to take this as constructive criticism, rather than a personal attack. Note: this can feel personal, and it's ok to feel a bit down with this result. However, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start working on the corrections. The sooner the issues are corrected, the sooner your article will be published.
4) Reject - this is the decision you don't want to see. It means that the reviewer does not believe you work is right for the journal or has several flaws which would stop it being published. Two things: 1) take note of their criticism, as they can help improve the work for the next submission, and 2) be sceptical - reviewers aren't always right and you’re allowed to disagree (with evidence). Don't be afraid to call out bad reviews, as sometimes they aren't fair or the person may have missed the point of your work. This may not mean you can't publish at the journal you submitted to, but if the editor has agreed to reject the manuscript, then you need to move on to another journal for consideration after improving the work the best you can with the reviewers’ comments.
Review response (if you haven't been rejected): once you’ve taken on board the reviews, you must prepare a response document. This document details the changes you've made to the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. This is also your opportunity to refute any comments that you don’t agree with (with evidence). You need to impress upon the editor that you have taken this process seriously and done your best to improve the work and you have fixed any flaws. The document should be detailed, address every reviewer’s comment, and be professional (do not respond emotionally to a reviewer you disagree with).
Second Review: Sometimes an editor will decide to send the updated manuscript back to the reviewers so that they can confirm that they are happy with the updates. This is more common when you have had to make major changes, but doesn’t always happen.
Acceptance and publishing of your work: Once the editor has agreed that your manuscript is suitable for publication it will be sent to a publishing editor who prepares it for publication in a journal. This involves type setting and formatting specific to the journal. Once this is done, you will be provided with a proof to check for errors.
Proofing: You will receive a manuscript proof from the journal. This is a preprint version of your article, which allows you to check for typographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. Take it seriously and check the document line-by-line (as well as the figures), as this is your last chance to make corrections, but only minor ones like typos or grammatical errors. You will supply the changes to the publisher, and they will make these corrections.
Celebrate! Your article is published (woohoo!) You have gotten through the complicated process of publishing research. This process was likely laborious and took multiple months from writing the manuscript to publication. Congratulations! Now you can start your next publication (…woo..hoo?)
