h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just submitted my first article for Peer Review, as in for a scientific journal, not for h2g2.

Eep.

Ooooh, how exciting and scary! I hope they are as helpful as we are.

You have to wait longer to get the comments back (about 3 weeks) and they're anonymous, it depends on the reviewer.. so well.. they vary.http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/wheel-of-peer-review.html

I've also, on the same day submitted a review for another journal and it was of course full of helpful and constructive comments. No smiley though.

I've always wondered about anonymous reviews. Not sure if I think they're good or bad.

Well I guess from my point of view as a reviewer, they think that scientists are more likely to be honest if the review is anonymous. I know that people are more likely to take my review seriously if they look at the content and not at who I am. With my boss it would be the other way, no one would say 'I disagree with this review'. And some people hold grudges, so if someone reviewed my work negatively I might review theirs negatively.

Some people suggest that game theory supports a non-anonymous system encouraging more co-operative reivews, but i do worry it would put of people from saying 'this work is rubbish, and it should not be published'.

Obviously the journal editor gets to choose who reviews the paper, so checks that they are actually people who know what they're talking about, if you think the journal editor choose reviewers who didn't understand the topic then you can appeal and ask for a re-review.

Most journals have three reviewers, so if one is a bit mad you get the other two.

Eek! All the best, and hearty congratulations for getting this far.

TRiG.

Can't be worse than PR here

What Mala said.

Peer Review on h2g2 is fully of lovely supportive people who will help you to improve an article in the correct way. Including with the use of smilies.

Peer Review for Lancet Neurology.. well I don't know! Actually for the big journals. they first review an entry to see if it would be of interest to their readers, and then if the editor thinks that it might be interesting they send it out for peer review. This is because most of the science they get is probably ok, so they want to get the most interesting stuff. For smaller journals nearly everything gets peer reviewed.

From lancet neurology.. 'Several editors here have discussed the manuscript, but our decision is that it would be better placed elsewhere. '

Right onwards to the next journal, one that publishes systematic reviews more often...

Better luck next time.

The Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry have rejected it, but they'd like us to make some changes and re-submit it. Prof Boss thinks that's an excellent outcome and the chances are that it will be published if I make the changes.

So I think that this is good news.

Ooh!

Good for you!

I hope this doesn't sound too trite - but I am really proud to know someone who can contribute towards improving mankind's lot in this world in a significant way.

I'm sure Prof Boss is right - "change a, b, and c, then resubmit" is as strong a hint as any that it will be published, I suppose...

And they did

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/28/jnnp-2012-303645.full

Well done!

Congratulations!

I managed to do my PhD, and did once get a little article through the peer review for a society magazine but never even managed to get the paper based on my thesis published in an academic journal, never mind anything else, so I am in awe

Well done, Z!!


You worked hard on that paper!


lil x

Congratulations!