Thursday, 6 October 2016

#edenRW9 editors and the publishing process #papers

Question and answer session with editors, really great questions!

Question: Interesting question from Airina Volungeviciene whether the published research can be tagged in some way (like with xAPI or similar but than connected to bridge theory to practical) in order to see how applicable the research is, whether it is implemented and how. Some indicators to see the impact of science.  
No clear answer to that  from the editors (Dianne Conrad, Jill Buban, Josep Duart, Som Naidu) (yet). I would like to see this happen, also  in other areas. Aaron Silvers, what do you think would this be possible.

Question from Marti Cleveland-Innes: increasing fear for reviewing articles, editing journals… how can this become more possible given the increased time shortage. And can you give a notion of who reviews your articles, how do you choose reviewers.
Answer: (Diane Conrad) you hit the nail on the head, it is a major fallacy of peer-review. We rate reviewers and than evaluate whether they can stay on as reviewer. We assign 4 reviewers to every article (in the hope 2 will respond).
(Som Naidu): we are editors for our academic responsibility. And universities do not reward people for doing reviews! Academics might be given awards for that type of work. There is a process for each reviewer, and if reviewers do not respond than they come out. A full professor is the busiest, and they almost do not respond. So we choose reviewers who are early in their academic career.
(Josep Duart). We collect as much information as possible in terms of their expertise, so we have a good profile of them as academics in their field.

Question: George Veletsianos: could you give feedback to the authors on how to respond to ‘minor or major’ revisions.
Answer: (Diane Conrad) it is upon the reviewer to make sensible comments that support the review suggestion. The feedback needs to provide support for the decision made by the reviewer.
(Som Naidu) I look at the reports and filter them if they are too different before sending them to the author. And than provide the author with the option of what the author can do, making it possible to the author to enter into a constructive conversation.

Question: how can we get published
(Diane Conrad) Most common reasons for rejection:
Turn it in is used, and its reports.
We look at the scope of the research for the journal
Issue of the research with little importance, specifically to our readership
There is always something out there on any topic… never think there is not.  (we prescreen articles before sending them to reviewers)
Make an article understandable right from the abstracts. Abstracts should be written after the article, and be VERY precise, including the conclusions!
If the research is old, probably not accepted, use up to date research.
Use up to date literature
Do not republish, we have seen it before makes it unpublishable.

Question: how do you handle contradictory reviews
There always are more opinions, and it can be depressing to see how different equal experts give different reviews and decisions.
Each review is different, so as an editor I choose what goes out and what does not go out.
I consider the quality of the reviews, and the quality of the reviewer. I might send it to another reviewer, or take a personal decision as an expert myself (Diane)
If one decline is suggested by reviewers, I do not publish it.
Some reviews are not up to snuff, so I do look over the reviewer comments.

There are a lot of subjective components in the editorship. 
editors get not paid