GeoVerbiage

You've all heard about shingling and what it is.  As a reviewer, you can be very helpful to the editor by pointing out that a paper is a shingle.  Keep in mind that, even in specialty journals, the editors may come from a wide variety of backgrounds and may not be familiar with all aspects of the literature.  At high-load journals, it may be very difficult if not impossible for the editors to do the legwork--which can take a couple of hours or more per paper--to figure out if a paper is a shingle, so they really are dependent on the reviewers. Before I start, though, let me define shingling for those of you who might not be that familiar with the concept.  Shingling is publishing basically the same paper as one you've published before, but with some new data added, resulting in, at best, a mere expansion of already-reached conclusions. Not all papers that have new data added to old data are shingles.  I have seen many papers that add new data to previous work, but the new d

This post is in response to a couple more reader queries.  To paraphrase, the queries were: (1) If I can't understand a paper, how do I know it's the author's fault or my lack of comprehension? (2) How do I tell the difference between things I as a reviewer think the paper should have done, either by necessity or to meet standards (mine, the authors', or the journal's) versus general betterment of the work?  (1)  Aside from the case of poor English, which was addressed in Reviewing #8, there are a couple of reasons this might happen.  One is if you were sent a paper that is so far outside of your expertise you cannot possibly give it a critical review.  It happens, but I do think reviewers sometimes turn down invitations too quickly on this basis.  Most authors want their audience to be larger than the handful of people in their specialty, so having reviewers who aren't in the center of a particular field can be very useful to editors.  But if you don'

Note:  Since writing the essay below, I've learned that it is considered rude in some quarters to suggest that a paper be read by a native English speaker because it makes the assumption that the author is not a native.  I think this criticism is a bit off base because if you have any sensitivity to how various non-native English speakers speak English, it's pretty easy to pick up on what their native language is--even with seeing their names.  Having said that, the more tactful approach would be to point out that it is not in idiomatic English and ask the author to edit it accordingly.  Then it's up to the author to figure out what to do. If editors were paid, I'd just suggest the editors do the necessary editing, but they usually aren't, so that' a big ask.  Of course, if the English is so poor that a paper cannot be understood, then the reviewer/editor has no choice but to point that out (this goes for native English speakers, too, by the way).  If you are a

This post is in response to a reader query (restated slightly from the original comment):   How do you decide when (as an author) to just submit to a different journal instead of making major revisions, and is this is ok? I took this to mean that the editor has asked for major revisions, rather than rejecting your work ("major revisions" would include decisions like "reject--invite resubmission"). The short is answer is, of course it's OK--you can do whatever you want with your work.  There is nothing unethical about submitting to another journal.  It would be considered courteous to inform the editor of this, although not necessary. Further developing this response, however, the answer is actually complex because it kind of depends on what major revisions are being asked for. Major revision may be requested on two broad bases, or a combination of the two.  One might be called technical and the other might be called editorial.  I'll address the latter

It appears some people can leave comments and some cannot.  I have read the help forums on this topic and note that they are all pretty old, at least two years old.  I also don't understand all the technical language.  So far as I can determine, if you have disabled third-party cookies, you will be unable to post comments. Whether you do so is entirely up to you.  Enabling cookies can pose some security dangers in some computers and for some people.  If you enable cookies, you do so at your own risk. For residents of the EU, enabling cookies can result in a loss of privacy.  I recommend you not enable  cookies.  I cannot control your privacy settings, so you are responsible for your own actions.

Whether you sign your reviews is a personal decision, and I would never question someone who decides on anonymity.  But, here's my take on it.  I decided from my first review request, which must have been some time in the early or mid-1980s, to sign all my reviews.  I did this despite the fact that most people opted for anonymity and many women often concealed their sex by using only initials (I also decided to publish using my full name). I made this decision for one reason.  I felt (and still feel) that if I were critical of someone's work, I should have the courage of my convictions.  Science is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, and hiding behind anonymity in reviews is not, in my mind, conducive to that kind of transparency.  I would sign my reviews of NSF proposals, if NSF would let me (they will not allow you to sign, and will strip out any attempt to do so). I cannot know what I don't know, so I have no idea if this decision has had negative conseq

OK, you've accepted the assignment to review a paper.  I've already outlined the elements of a good review and the etiquette of turning down a review request.  Now I'd like to discuss the etiquette of reviewing. Don't accept a review assignment unless you are positive you can do it within the time limit set by the journal.  To ensure that you do, set aside a time--put it on your calendar, even--to do it.  Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because the deadline is 30 days out, you'll surely find the time.  In fact, I would recommend having a self-imposed deadline of 2 weeks.  It's easier to look 2 weeks into the future than a month, you will get it off your desk faster, and you'll avoid some of the tactics used by some journals to keep the review process moving (see below). Here are some of the things that can happen if you are late with your review: Decisions are delayed.  Put yourself in the author's shoes.  You've submitted a manus

Everybody thinks they need big blocks of time to get serious writing done.  But nobody has big blocks of time.  It's a wonder anything gets published at all.  Spoiler alert:  I've never found a magic bullet to this problem.  For me, it just took a lot of working at self discipline.  Another thing that helped was I had the opportunity to take a time-management class, and I'll share a trick I learned.  I hope this post will help. When I got married in graduate school, I made a promise to myself to work like mad during the weekdays so that I could have evenings and weekends with my husband as much as possible (he worked at an 8-5 job).  I was amazed at how much more efficient I became when I kept that goal in mind. I basically used the same technique in teaching myself to write with smaller blocks of time.  Part of it was an adjustment in perspective.  Rather than looking for big blocks of time, I started focusing on the little blocks of time that I was wasting, like the h

Okay, I lied.  At the end of Writing #1, I promised to give some hints on how to write without having big blocks of time.  That's not what this post is about.  The next one will be, I promise. Very few people have gone through their entire careers without having a paper rejected, and those people are lying about it (for the humor-deprived who might actually have not had a paper rejected: this is a joke ). In Reviewing #5, I talked about the pain of having a paper rejected.  As I pointed out there, probably the most common decision you will see will be some version of "reject--invite resubmission". Be aware that the fact that you have been invited to resubmit (or make major revisions) is actually a positive thing.  Really.  It gives you the opportunity to take what was a great paper (to you) into a whole 'nother realm of significance.  It means the reviewers and editor saw potential in your paper.  It does not guarantee the revision will be accepted, though, so

So, you've poured yourself into a paper to make it the best paper you can write.  You and your co-authors, if any, have read and re-read and re-read the paper, generating endless versions marked up with balloons from "track changes" and comments.  You finally send it out and, after a seemingly interminable amount of time, you get the reviews back.  Your heart clenches, you break into a cold sweat, and your hand hesitates over the mouse, ready to open the email.  You can't quite bring yourself to click the mouse.  You know you must.  You know you must suck it up and open the email, but you just can't make yourself.  What if the reviews are bad?  Worse, what if the paper has been rejected? If that happens to you, read this blog post. You are not alone! I'm semi-retired and old enough that those critical notifications came by mail early in my career.  Bad enough having an email staring at you waiting to be opened.  It's worse if it's a letter

In Reviewing #2, I provided a general overview of what makes a good review.  Here I add some details. It is not necessary to recap the paper.  Many reviewers craft a careful summary of the paper.  The authors and editors know what the paper says, so don't waste time doing this.  On the other hand, a recap can  be revealing if you aren't sure what the paper is really about.  In that case, saying something like, "It was difficult to understand the precise point(s) the authors were trying to make.  The paper appears to emphasize (or be about, or report on, or whatever phrase you want to use)....."  If your recap is not what the authors intended, that's a pretty good message for the authors to get. Your review does not have to be long.  I have gotten reviews that are extremely lengthy and detailed, and I love the reviewers who write them, but I also feel great sympathy for the time they spent doing the reviews.  I even had a reviewer who rewrote the entire Disc

Editors understand that review requests often arrive on reviewers' desks at bad times and that reviewers cannot always be responsive.  So we expect reviewers to turn us down.  But if you cannot respond positively to a request, there are ways to turn it down that are very helpful to the editors (and the entire review process), and there are ways that drive editors batty.  A little consideration goes a long, long way. Do Respond as soon as you get the request. Use the link provided, if there is one, to turn down the request. Suggest alternate reviewers, if asked, as many as possible, and particularly if they are relatively new to the profession, such as assistant professors or postdocs.  The more people in the reviewing pool, the easier it is on everyone. Provide email addresses and/or institutional affiliations of those alternate reviewers. Do not Let the request expire without responding.  The journal I edit for will let requests hang out there for a week before

Let's face it, reviewing even short papers is time consuming, and time is at a premium.  There is little reward. Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap.  Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume).  After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good).  The other instance is after tenure.  If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community. But those impacts are low.  No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any reviewing

A question I get a lot from people, from students to peers is, how do you make yourself write? Nike provided a splendid answer:   Just do it. Okay, okay, I know that's not particularly helpful, despite being true.  It took me years and years before I internalized this lesson, so I do know how hard it is to get motivated.  All I can do is tell you what has worked for me.  I hope that, even if my techniques don't work for you, you'll see a grain of truth that will help you find your way. First, full disclosure:  There are people who must write from an outline or they just can't stay organized.  Then there are people who cannot  write from an outline because they can't write an outline.  Not that they don't know how, just that their brains don't work that way.  I fall somewhere in between. When I sit down to write a paper, I start with the easy stuff.  What is the easiest part of a paper to write?  For me, it's the methods.  I use writing the method

The most important task for a reviewer is to do a good review.  By "good", I mean constructive and as comprehensive as you have time for but comprehensive enough (see "constructive"). Don't pull your punches, but don't be sarcastic or dismissive, either.  One would think this would go without saying, but it's not.  So what do I mean when I say "don't pull your punches"? Human nature is such that we read the good and ignore the bad.  If you wrap all the negative comments in cotton, the author(s) will misread them or won't take them seriously.  So it's best to just be straightforward and candid.  Explain what the problem is and why it's a problem (and there may be multiple problems).  And, if you are so inclined, suggest a solution.  If you cite references, be sure to provide them. Basically, follow the Golden Rule.  Ask yourself if your review will either help the author(s) improve the manuscript, or if the manuscript cann

This post is imported from Facebook, so if you were in on that discussion, this will be a repeat. Reviewing is time consuming. How do I get started? Review a paper like you would read it. Hardly anyone starts with the title and reads straight through. You'll probably have already read the abstract or you wouldn't have accepted the invitation to review. Read the introduction then the conclusions. The conclusions should logically follow from the introduction. If they do, it will probably be a good paper; if they don't, prepare for a bit of a slog. (NB:  Editors try to catch the really bad ones, but keep in mind the editor might not be an expert.) Then, with the basic gist of the paper, start over and read it through.  I have found it very useful to keep a Word file open as I read and, where I have specific comments or issues I want to return to, I note them in the file. The line numbers in the ms are very helpful for this. Once you've read it through, go to your

I started a discussion on Facebook about reviewing journal articles, and numerous participants made requests for me to make my posts more accessible.  This blog is the answer to that request.  On another blog,  janebarnescraigburrows.blogspot.com , I muse on the difference between writing fiction (I have two novels out) and scientific writing. This blog will deal not only with reviewing but pretty much any topic of writing and editing for which I get a request. Disclaimer:  These are my opinions and thoughts.  Others may disagree.  I hope they add comments if they do! I apologize that I cannot organize the posts.  As with most blogs, the topics appear in reverse chronological order.  So far as I can tell, I can't change that.