The Role for Associate Editors at the Journal of Chemical

Sep 5, 2017 - to read the Author Guidelines at the Journal Web site.2 The. Information for Authors Web site3 contains links to resources that are usef...
0 downloads 11 Views 569KB Size
Download PDF
Commentary Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

The Role for Associate Editors at the Journal of Chemical Education John M. Risley* Department of Chemistry, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina 28137, United States ABSTRACT: When a manuscript is submitted to the Journal of Chemical Education, the authors will correspond primarily with an Associate Editor (AE), who has the responsibility to see the manuscript through the review process. The role for AEs in the review process is described. An AE reads the manuscript, invites reviewers, evaluates the comments and recommendations from reviewers, and makes a decision that is based on the criteria for publication in the Journal. The role for reviewers in the process and the difference between helpful reviews and less helpful reviews are also described. KEYWORDS: General Public, Elementary/Middle School Science, High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Graduate Education/Research, Continuing Education, Communication/Writing, Administrative Issues

A

is a decision that AEs use infrequently because each manuscript has already undergone an assessment by the Editorial Office upon submission. If the AE decides that there are issues that are crucial for authors to address before the manuscript is sent out for review so that reviewers have the necessary information for an informed review, then the decision “Reject and Resubmit” is made. The AE will send a decision letter to the authors that describes the issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be sent for review. This decision most often is used at this point when authors have overlooked information to include in the manuscript as per the Author Guidelines.2 Third, if the manuscript has met the criteria of the AE for review, an AE will invite experts in the field to provide reviews of the manuscript (see below for the role of reviewers). In general, a minimum of three outside reviews is preferred before an AE will make a decision. If it is not possible to review a manuscript, declining the invitation as soon as possible is appreciated so that an AE may invite additional reviewers to avoid delays in the review process; recommendations for potential reviewers are valued. Reviewers provide comments to the authors of papers, and have an opportunity to provide separate comments to the AE and editorial office about the manuscript. Each reviewer also provides a recommendation to the AE. Fourth, when the reviews have been returned, the AE evaluates the comments and recommendation of each reviewer to the authors and to the AE/editorial office, if provided. These reviews are used in conjunction with the AE’s own, independent evaluation of the manuscript as the basis for a decision. An AE may also request comments on a manuscript from a preproduction editor and a graphics editor at the editorial office at any time in the review process. These two editors provide comments on the technical aspects of the manuscript and graphics, respectively. It is very important for authors to respond to these comments in order to preclude a delay in publication by the publisher for the Journal.

t the 24th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (BCCE) meeting held at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, July 31−August 4, 2016, the Journal of Chemical Education held a town hall meeting for our stakeholders: readers, authors, and reviewers. This meeting was an opportunity for interested individuals to learn about the operation of the Journal and to ask questions.1 The attendance at the meeting was quite good, and the questions from the audience showed a real interest in the working of the Journal. We thank all of those who attended and made it a good meeting. In the meeting, I described the role for Associate Editors (AEs) related to the review process for manuscripts submitted to the Journal. My background is that I have been an AE for the Journal for seven years, and I typically handle between 375 and 400 manuscripts per year, which includes initial submissions and revisions. For those who were not able to attend the town hall meeting, I was asked to describe the role for AEs in this paper.

■

WHAT DO ASSOCIATE EDITORS DO? The answer to this question is straightforward: each Associate Editor makes a decision whether a manuscript meets the criteria for publication according to the Author Guidelines for the Journal.2,3 There are six decisions available for a manuscript: Approve; Minor revision; Major revision; Reject and resubmit; Reject after editorial review; and Reject.

■

WHAT IS THE REVIEW PROCESS? To arrive at one of the decisions, there is a well-defined procedure that each AE follows (Figure 1). First, a manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an AE based on the expertise of the AE. In my case, I am assigned those manuscripts related primarily to biochemistry and organic chemistry, but I have also been assigned manuscripts in other fields such as analytical chemistry and inorganic chemistry. Second, an AE reads each manuscript for an initial assessment. After this initial reading, an AE has an option for two decisions. If the AE decides that the material in the manuscript falls outside of the scope of the Journal, then the decision “Reject after Editorial Review” is made. In general, this © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: August 28, 2016 Revised: September 5, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00657 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

Figure 1. Flowchart overview of the review process. (The infrequently made decision “Reject after Editorial Review” is not shown.)

Fifth, the decision by an AE is the sole responsibility of the AE. It must be emphasized that the reviews and recommendations are not “votes” and that the review process is not “majority rules”. At this point, an AE makes one of five decisions: Approve, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject and Resubmit, or Reject. It is very rare that an initial manuscript submission receives the decision of “Approve” because there is at least a minor revision necessary. A decision of a “Minor Revision” is most often used if the evaluation of an AE is that the revisions requested from the authors can be addressed successfully in a short turn-around time. A decision of a “Major Revision” is most often used if the evaluation of an AE is that the revisions requested from the authors are substantial, but can be addressed successfully in a longer turn-around time. A decision of “Reject and Resubmit” is used when there are positive aspects to the work described in the manuscript, but the revisions required are more than a Major Revision and can be addressed successfully only in a much longer time frame. In each of the latter three decisions, an AE will provide comments to authors with suggestions for improvement of the manuscript, directing the authors’ attention to comments of the reviewers. A decision of “Reject” is used if the evaluation of an AE is that the work described in the manuscript does not meet the criteria for publication in the Journal. Sixth, if a revised manuscript is submitted, an AE may request another round of external reviews, often from the same reviewers who provided reviews of the initial manuscript, to obtain comments and recommendations whether issues raised by reviewers in the initial manuscript have been addressed satisfactorily in the revised manuscript. However, an AE may choose to make a decision without an additional round of external reviews. An AE makes one of five decisions for the revised manuscript: Approve; Minor Revision; Major Revision; Reject and Resubmit; or Reject. A second “Major Revision” decision is less likely to be made at this point. Seventh, once an AE is satisfied that a manuscript has met the criteria for publication, a decision of “Approve” is made and

the authors are notified that the manuscript has been forwarded to the editorial office for processing. The role for an AE is complete. However, authors should understand that a manuscript does not receive “Accepted” status until the editorial office processing phase is complete, so any requests during this processing phase need to be addressed as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible by the authors to avoid delays in publication.

■

WHAT IS THE ROLE FOR REVIEWERS IN THE PROCESS? Reviewers have a very important role in the evaluation process for manuscripts submitted to the Journal to maintain the quality and reputation of the Journal. The comments and recommendations of reviewers are highly valued by AEs for a decision on a manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort it requires to provide reviews for the Journal. Therefore, reviewers have the following role in the process. First, upon acceptance of an invitation to review a manuscript, a reviewer should provide a timely review. When an individual has accepted an invitation to review a manuscript, AEs depend on the reviewer for the review, and we do not continue to send out invitations to additional individuals to be reviewers once we have the requisite number of reviewers for a manuscript. We understand that circumstances can arise where a review might be slightly delayed or a review cannot be provided, so this should be communicated to an AE as soon as is possible as a courtesy to the authors and the other reviewers. Second, reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript on five criteria:4 • Scholarship (scientific and scholarly rigor) • Originality (novelty, original scholarship, innovation, creativity) • Pedagogy (educational relevance, insight) • Utility (usefulness to JCE readers, rationale) • Presentation (organization and discussion, use of nontextual components) B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00657 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

Third, reviewers are asked to rate the five criteria for a publishable manuscript as Meets Highest Standards; Acceptable; Needs Improvement; or Unacceptable. Fourth, reviewers are asked to estimate the value of the work in terms of publishing order: Immediately (ahead of others); High but not top priority; As space becomes available; or Never. Fifth, reviewers are asked their recommendation: Publish As Is; Minor Revision; Major Revision; or Do Not Publish.

Commentary

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FROM AN AE The most important advice that an AE will have for authors is to read the Author Guidelines at the Journal Web site.2 The Information for Authors Web site3 contains links to resources that are useful in preparing for online submission, including the following: • Author Guidelines • Specific Content Requirements for Chemical Education Research Manuscripts • Document Templates (including files and instructions to help with preparing graphics) • Reference Guidelines (illustrates the format to be used for references in a manuscript) • Copyright and Permissions • ACS AuthorChoice, Funded Research Options, Other Services & Policies • Submit a Manuscript (a link to the submission portal for ACS Paragon Plus) The ACS Resources Web site6 offers practical guidelines for authors and reviewers through presentations, summary sheets, and other materials that aim to help authors and reviewers better understand and improve their manuscript submission and review process. The ACS Author and Reviewer Resource Center7,8 provides useful information with links to topical publishing resources. When a manuscript is submitted to the Journal, authors are provided an opportunity to recommend expert reviewers for the work submitted. AEs also have a database of reviewers available and use sources such as SciFinder Scholar to find reviewers. Authors can include the names of individuals that the authors would prefer not review the manuscript. Individuals who wish to review manuscripts for the Journal, or who wish to update the area of expertise, should see “How do I become a reviewer for ACS journals?”9 Reviewers are to be complimented that the reviews that have been returned have met the standards for professionalism. Occasionally, a review may contain a comment that, in the judgment of an AE, is inappropriate, and the AE has the authority to delete such comments. All of the AEs for the Journal, except one, have current academic appointments; one AE is an emeritus professor. We are involved in the teaching, scholarship, and service that are expected for our positions. Authors can be assured that the AEs work diligently to move manuscripts through the review process as quickly as possible to provide decisions. I can honestly state that each AE enjoys the challenges that come with the position, and particularly enjoys working with authors, reviewers, and staff to provide a high-quality journal in chemical education.

Helpfulness of Review Comments and Recommendations

AEs receive helpful reviews and less helpful reviews for a decision on, particularly, an initial manuscript. A helpful review is one that addresses each of the five criteria, explains a reviewer’s evaluation, and is self-consistent. For example: • Why is the scholarship deemed “Acceptable”; is there an issue that authors could address so that scholarship could be “Meets Highest Standards”? • Why does the pedagogy garner a “Needs Improvement” rating; what do the authors need to do to improve the pedagogy? In a helpful review, the evaluation of the five criteria is consistent with the ratings and recommendation provided in the review. There are two types of less helpful reviews. The first type is one that states “Good paper. Publish as is.” with no supporting statements indicating why it is a good paper and should be published without revision; what makes the scholarship appropriately characterized as “Meets Highest Standards”, or the presentation as “Acceptable”? A typical example that occurs more often than one might think is that this first type of less helpful review is received for a manuscript at the same time that a helpful review is received for the same manuscript where the recommendation is “Major Revision” or “Do Not Publish” with a detailed review for the recommendation. The second type of less helpful review is one that is not selfconsistent. In these reviews, the evaluations of the criteria are opposite to the recommendations. For example, the evaluation of the scholarship may indicate major problems that need to be addressed by the authors, but the rating might be “Acceptable” with a recommendation of “Minor Revision”. In these second type of less helpful reviews, it is often difficult for an AE to understand the intent of the reviewer. When the situation arises that an AE receives four different reviewer recommendations (“Publish As Is”, “Minor Revision”, “Major Revision”, and “Do Not Publish”) for a manuscript, the helpful reviews will probably assist an AE with the decision process more than the less helpful reviews. A comment that some reviewers provide to authors is that a manuscript needs to be edited for grammar and punctuation in order to maintain the high standards of English that the reviewer and a reader expect in the Journal of Chemical Education. Although some reviewers provide editorial comments for the authors or even fully edited manuscripts, which authors generally appreciate, it is not expected that reviewers will provide this service to authors. Authors are responsible for the preparation of manuscripts that maintain the high standards of English that readers expect for the Journal. Authors may wish to obtain professional assistance from a service such as ACS ChemWorx Authoring Services.5

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

John M. Risley: 0000-0002-8647-7031 Notes

The author declares no competing financial interest. John M. Risley is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte with over 30 years of teaching experience at the university level. He teaches undergraduate and graduate chemistry courses, and a writing course for chemistry students. He has published research in chemical C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00657 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

education, biochemistry, and organic chemistry. He was a member of the Project ChemLab Committee for the Journal of Chemical Education between 2001 and 2011, where he served as a biochemistry reviewer and editor. He currently serves as an Associate Editor in the fields of biochemistry and organic chemistry for the Journal of Chemical Education.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Bernadette Caldwell for helpful editorial comments and assistance with this paper, and Randy Wildman for his graphical skills in the preparation of the figure.

■

REFERENCES

(1) The 2018 BCCE, hosted by the University of Notre Dame, will also feature a JCE town hall meeting. See the web site for the 25th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education as more information becomes available. http://bcce2018.org/ (accessed Jan 2018). (2) Author Guidelines for the Journal of Chemical Education. http:// pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/jceda8/jceda8_authguide.pdf (accessed Jan 2018). (3) Information for Authors. http://pubs.acs.org/page/jceda8/ submission/authors.html (accessed Jan 2018). (4) Information for Reviewers. http://pubs.acs.org/page/jceda8/ submission/reviewers.html (accessed Jan 2018). (5) ACS ChemWorx Authoring Services. http://es.acschemworx.acs. org/en/ (accessed Jan 2018). (6) American Chemical Society. ResourcesACS on Campus. http://acsoncampus.acs.org/resources/ (accessed Jan 2018). (7) ACS Author and Reviewer Resource Center. http://pubs.acs.org/ page/4authors/index.html (accessed Jan 2018). (8) ACS. Manuscript Submission and Peer ReviewInformation for Reviewers. http://pubs.acs.org/page/review/index.html (accessed Jan 2018). (9) How do I become a reviewer for ACS journals? https://help.acs. org/link/portal/9131/9131/Article/1203/How-do-I-become-areviewer-for-ACS-journals (accessed Jan 2018).

D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00657 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX