Whether you like it or not, productivity in academia/science is judged (at least in part) based on your publication rate. This focus on quantity is associated with various problems – see for example “Problem 4: Pressure to publish” of Chris Chamber’s recent post. Although the goal of doing science should not be the publications themselves, they remain an important method of disseminating our results and ideas to other researchers and the public. Learning how to write a concise, informative, thorough, accurate and all-round good research paper is clearly an important skill to acquire during your PhD, particularly if you hope to continue your academic career.
However, learning how to get your paper through the peer review process is also a skill that you need to acquire. The quality of your writing and your ability to include important details in your manuscript (i.e. the content) are of course directly linked to this but there are other important things too. I’m glad that the attitude of my supervisors and more generally, in my department, is that I should be publishing my PhD work when ready, as this gives me targets for writing up my thesis. Being involved in analyses and manuscripts outside of my core PhD has given me additional experience in navigating the peer review process.
Step 1: Choosing a journal
Once you are happy with your analysis and have started writing a manuscript, you need to decide on a target journal for your work. I have written about this before and I have to agree with my previous thoughts on the matter: it just takes experience and time to get a sense of what journals publish what kinds of papers, in terms of their specific focus etc. When I’m reading papers, I tend to ignore what journal they came from, though sometimes I make a conscious effort to check this. Journal homepages frequently have a little blurb about what sorts of papers they will publish and scanning through the titles/abstracts of some of their recent issues can help. There are a couple of online tools which allow you to paste your abstract in and then scan it for keywords to give you some suggestions of appropriate journals. I’ve also tended to chat to my supervisors to get their more experienced thoughts on the matter.
Step 2: Choosing reviewers
Perhaps my least favourite part of submitting a paper is the need to identify potential reviewers. Some journals even require six different reviewers. How do you know who to suggest? Ideally, you want to identify people who have a good understanding of the background to your work and the methods you have used, are fair and have a good reputation and don’t have a clear conflict of interest. For my first few papers I relied heavily on my supervisors to suggest people based on their research interests and reputations. I kept a list of these suggestions and have re-used names for other submissions, where appropriate. Although in cases where my paper was rejected, unsurprisingly, I’ve tried to come up with alternatives.
I think the main way of identifying potential appropriate peer reviewers is by checking the author lists of the papers that are most closely linked to your own work. I’ve also found that going to seminars, talks and conferences is also useful. Seeing somebody present their work, especially if it is relevant to yours, means you are much more likely to remember their name. If you get the opportunity to speak to them, for example if you are lucky enough for them to visit your poster presentation at a conference, you can even get a sense of what kind of person they are and what they think about your work. I think this may also be particularly helpful for trying to identify potential PhD thesis examiners.
One other thing to bear in mind is that the anonymity of the peer review process means you are unlikely to find out which of the people you suggested did end up reviewing your work and which of them were the ones who gave the positive and useful comments or indeed, the less polite ones.
Dealing with rejection – back to step 1
Even after writing as a good a paper as you can, having it internally reviewed by your supervisors and co-authors, proof-read by your colleagues and settling on a journal and possible reviewers, the chances of having your publication rejected can feel depressingly high. It happens to the best of academics, sometimes for the wrong reasons (e.g. null results from a well-powered good study design) and sometimes because of bad luck in having reviewers who have misunderstood your work and not given you a chance to clarify it. I think that being able to cope with the occasional rejection and carry on without letting it get to you personally is an important thing to learn too.
Step 3: Responding to reviewers’ comments
It’s important to bear in mind that (almost) regardless of what the comments are, being asked to do revisions is good news! I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a paper being accepted for publication without at least some minor revisions. More frequently, major revisions are called for, oftentimes multiple rounds of these. Whether it is the anonymity of peer review or tactlessness to blame, reviewers’ comments can sometimes be a little upsetting in their negativity. For some examples of particularly harsh comments, see FemaleScienceProfessor’s recent “Fake Review Contest” blog posts. Alternatively, for some slightly more humorous examples, see this Storify of the recent #SixWordPeerReview Twitter meme.
In an ideal world, the reviewers’ comments would all be very insightful, sensible and constructive, with a view to improving the manuscript. Although many comments will be quite reasonable, there are a few things to learn about writing your response to them. What should you do if you disagree on a certain point or if the reviewer is asking for something that you had actually already mentioned? I’ve been told by colleagues that if a reviewer is asking for something that is already there, you might need to make this item clearer and more prominent (especially if it’s hidden away in supplementary text for instance). As for disagreeing, if you have a genuine scientific reason, you should probably defend your work and the decisions you made, although perhaps also amend your manuscript to discuss the issue further.
Another question concerns the tone of your response. Should you be excessively polite, thanking the reviewers for their useful comments multiple times, or just get straight to the point of addressing them? You don’t want to come across as abrupt or rude. Generally speaking, you probably need to be professional and polite, but assertive if you have solid reasons backing up how you performed your experiment or chose to present the results. It can be quite useful to look at how other people write their responses to reviewers, which you can do by looking at the “peer review history” of articles published at PeerJ.
Having a little bit of experience with how peer review works may help you anticipate the sorts of comments that you might get. Being a reviewer yourself (something I have only a little experience of so far) and discussing research articles during a journal club can also highlight what kinds of things will make a good publishable research article.