PEPS Editors' Blog: The publication process

Bjørn O. Mysen

The principal permanent record of our work as scientists is publication in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Editors facilitate the publication process that builds this record.

Here, I will offer a few thoughts and observations from my own experience as an editor by describing the normal process and role of the participants. I also will show examples of what may not be uncommon, but is not acceptable.

Authors and authorship

Each and every author is responsible for the content of a manuscript. Most academic institutions and journals have rules that govern authorship. For example, the following excerpt from the guidelines of authorship of the Medical School of Harvard University states that

"Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable. Acquisition of funding and provision of technical services, patients, or materials, while they may be essential to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship." (Source: Authorship Guidelines of the Medical School of Harvard University)

Similar rules can be found for most academic institutions.

These rules, however, frequently are ignored. In my experience, one of the most glaringly inappropriate attempts at gaining undeserved authorship was a very senior person demanding co-authorship of paper because as he put it “…I am interested in the topic”. Other cases of ghost authorship include authorship because the researchers used facilities of somebody not associated with the project. There are also times when individuals who have done reading and editing of manuscripts prior to submission demand authorship. There are also cases where the senior researcher wants manuscript text changed because it disagrees with earlier papers published with his or her name in the author list and use seniority or membership in professional organizations as justification. I have witnessed such incidents first hand. This behavior is unacceptable, but it happens.

As editors, we expect the authors to have done the very best they can with a manuscript before its submission. Unfortunately, this is not always so. Authors sometimes submit manuscripts to a journal with the comment that they will clean it up after reviews. Also, in papers with multiple authors where an early-career researcher is senior author and with more senior scientists as coauthors, it is important that those latter authors provide of their time and knowledge to ensure that a manuscript is ready for submission before this actually takes place. Sometimes they do not. Both cases show lack of respect for the journal, its reviewers, and its editorial staff. It also increases the possibility of rejection.

The submission process, authors, and peer review

In the submission process, the first editorial step is to determine whether the manuscript’s topic is suitable for the journal’s objectives. For example, some years ago as an editor of an earth and planetary science journal I received a manuscript dealing with properties of glass used for computer and television monitors. The topic was unsuitable for the journal and as an editor I made that decision without further review. That case was simple. Other cases can be less clear. A recent such example was a manuscript submitted to an earth science-centric journal describing the equation-of-state of NaCl. At first glance, the high-pressure behavior of crystalline NaCl might not seem important or relevant for our understanding of the Earth’s interior and, therefore, might be unsuitable for the particular journal. However, the NaCl equation-of-state is important for calibration of high-pressure/-temperature equipment used to examine physics and chemistry of deep earth materials. This makes the manuscript on NaCl suitable. The manuscript was accepted.

The editor’s main role is as manager of and judge during the review process. The editor will choose reviewers whose interests and expertise cover the specific technical aspects of an article as well broader implications. We also try to find reviewers from different age groups and cultural backgrounds in order to reach balance.

The peer review process is also the most difficult and time consuming step of the publication process and often governs the total time from manuscript submission to publication. It is also where the authors and reviewers can be very helpful in reducing this time. In order to keep that time to a minimum, potential reviewers are asked to respond to a request or invitation within a small number of days (a week or less is typical) followed by a fixed time within which a review is expected to be finished (typically three or four weeks). In situations where reviewer comments differ significantly, the editor may choose an additional review over the number commonly used. That step also adds time to the review process. When all reviews are in, the editor has perhaps a week to assess the reviews and return those to the authors together with his or her own comments. There also are times when an editor may choose a different manuscript disposition than that which may be recommended by the reviewers.

Occasionally we offer suggestions to the authors in order to improve and clarify the presentation. Sometimes we help with language problems, in particular if the journal’s language (usually English) differs from the author’s first language. We are quite sensitive to this issue so as not to place any author at a disadvantage. Occasionally, I may return a manuscript to authors before review requesting the authors to look for language assistance before proceeding with the submission. This can be helpful for all involved, including reviewers who may not want to spend the extra time to interpret descriptions that may not be clear.

Remember that, in principle, results of peer reviews are advisory. The decision of how to proceed, or not, lies with the editor. Most journals provide the opportunity for rebuttal. Short, succinct, objective, and well-reasoned rebuttals can be very helpful as the next step of the process is decided. Long-winded or personal attacks by authors or reviewers during rebuttal are not helpful and can also be counterproductive. The worst example that I have had as an editor was a suggestion by a very senior and well-known professor who got in trouble with the comments from one of the reviewers that I, the editor, must have a relationship with the reviewer! You can safely assume that this comment did not have a positive impact on the outcome.

A second round of revision is quite common. That happens more than 50% of the time. Additional reviews after the first round less common. An editor may choose this venue only if he/she cannot make a decision on an issue raised by reviewers and discussed without success with the authors.

The worst-case scenario is rejection. A rejection can happen at any stage of the process. Examples of late rejections are those where authors refuse to make changes or corrections required by the editor. This has happened to me as an editor and I know others also have had this experience. However, authors sometimes seem to believe that an editor’s decision for rejection is open to argument between the author(s) and the editor. Much time can be spent. Little is gained because editors extremely rarely will change their decision.

A few journals do not offer authors the opportunity of rebuttal or discussion of reviewer comments. The reasons for this policy are not clear. It may increase the speed of publication, but it is unhelpful for the authors and unhelpful for the science objectives. Such a review process also can lead to articles being rejected for reasons other than scientific quality. This mechanism also encourages establishment of cliques whose members look after one another through the reviews. Sadly, some of these journals have very high impact factors, which can be a consideration during and author’s job placement or promotion. This situation is unhelpful for both the scientists/authors and their chosen field of scientific pursuit.

The peer review process with discussion and clarification among authors and editors is the best we got. We cannot do our job as editors properly without your cooperation, understanding and generously volunteering your time as authors and reviewers. The process cannot function it.