Editorial Process
- 1. The Editorial Process Thomas Lemberger
- 2. Scientific publishing The publication of scientific information is intended to move science forward. More specifically, the act of publishing is a quid pro quo in which authors receive credit and acknowledgment in exchange for disclosure of their scientific findings. Source: “Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences”,. Board on Life Sciences, The National Academies Press (2003)
- 4. credit
- 6. reviewers & editors readers authors
- 7. authors
- 10. authors readers reviewers editors
- 11. author s reader s reviewer s editor s s cientists
- 17. The editorial process editorial rejection review reject revise reject accept time
- 20. quality
- 22. R Aebersold GM Church L Hood E Liu P Bork Julie Ahringer Charles Auffray Ewan Birney Tom Blundell Thomas S. Deisboeck Jan Ellenberg Michael Elowitz Alan Fersht Stan Fields Mark Gerstein Frank Holstege Sung Hou Kim Hiroaki Kitano Doron Lancet Andrew J. Link Stephen Oliver Jeremy Nicholson Bernhard Palsson Rama Ranganathan Uwe Sauer Luis Serrano Lucy Shapiro Pamela Silver Michael Snyder Janet Thornton Masaru Tomita Marc Vidal Hans V. Westerhoff Lothar Willmitzer John Yates Senior Editors Advisory Board EMBO Editor
- 23. R Aebersold GM Church L Hood E Liu P Bork Julie Ahringer Charles Auffray Ewan Birney Tom Blundell Thomas S. Deisboeck Jan Ellenberg Michael Elowitz Alan Fersht Stan Fields Mark Gerstein Frank Holstege Sung Hou Kim Hiroaki Kitano Doron Lancet Andrew J. Link Stephen Oliver Jeremy Nicholson Bernhard Palsson Rama Ranganathan Uwe Sauer Luis Serrano Lucy Shapiro Pamela Silver Michael Snyder Janet Thornton Masaru Tomita Marc Vidal Hans V. Westerhoff Lothar Willmitzer John Yates Senior Editors Advisory Board EMBO Editor Scope & general policies
- 24. To review or not to review... editorial rejection review reject revise reject accept time
- 25. To review or not to review... EMBO editors read the entire manuscript Check existing literature Decision on a balance of multiple factors: Scope Conceptual advance Mechanistic, functional, system-level biological insights Utility of methods, dataset, resource Completeness of the analysis
- 26. In case of doubt... R Aebersold GM Church L Hood E Liu P Bork Julie Ahringer Charles Auffray Ewan Birney Tom Blundell Thomas S. Deisboeck Jan Ellenberg Michael Elowitz Alan Fersht Stan Fields Mark Gerstein Frank Holstege Sung Hou Kim Hiroaki Kitano Doron Lancet Andrew J. Link Stephen Oliver Jeremy Nicholson Bernhard Palsson Rama Ranganathan Uwe Sauer Luis Serrano Lucy Shapiro Pamela Silver Michael Snyder Janet Thornton Masaru Tomita Marc Vidal Hans V. Westerhoff Lothar Willmitzer John Yates Senior Editors Advisory Board EMBO Editor
- 27. To review or not to review... editorial rejection review reject revise reject accept time
- 29. To review or not to review... editorial rejection review reject revise reject accept time
- 30. Peer-review Referees are invited base on: Balance of expertise Reputation as researcher Reputation as reviewer No conflict of interest (positive or negative) 3 (4) reviewers / manuscript
- 31. Invite, invite, invite... 1. Too busy 2. Too busy ; Sorry I can't agree to review this time -- I'm currently working on reviews for Nature Cell Biology and Nature Methods. 3. Too busy ; Sorry for the delay in responding. I have so many review assignments at present that are overdue, I just can't take on another (even though this one looks to be of high interest to me). My colleague … would be a good one for this.. 4. Travelling ; I would love to review this, but unfortunately am busy traveling and with conferences all of July 5. Travelling 6. Too busy 7. Too busy ; I am unfortunately unable to review the manuscript due to lack of time in the month ahead. 8. Lack of interest ; I am not convinced by those p-values; also what is the control data set. 9. Conflict of interest ; I am just beginning a collaborative effort in which X is a member. It is a borderline conflict, but I think I should probably recuse myself 10. Too busy ; Sorry 11. Too busy ; Most sorry - we're currently releasing a new central database and trying to meet the deadline for an invited review for one of your sister journals. So we're totally swamped, and people are soon leaving for summer holidays 12. Conflict of interest 13. Too busy
- 32. Top reviewers are very busy... 1. Conflict of interest ; Thanks for this invitation, but I actually have a similar paper in the second round of review right now at Nat Biotech!!!! 2. Too busy ; I have several other reviews due this month as well as organization for the upcoming XX conference 3. Too busy ; Sorry I cannot oblige you this time. I myself have been buried under 5 outstanding reviews over here, and already there is no way I will get all of them done in time. I will suggest some alternates below. Please don't hesitate to try again in the future- this type of article is usually something I would be able to review if I weren't so overwhelmed! 4. Too busy ; Sorry I cannot review this article this time. I have just accepted two reviews for Nature Biotech and another for Cell. 5. Too busy ; I would like to help out, but unfortunately I am also incapacitated at the moment by NIH grant reviews (I am on a study section that meets next week and I have just spent the entire last week reviewing grants). 6. Too busy ; I would love to oblige this time, but I must confess I am already over-committed with outstanding reviews for Science and Genome Research. 8. Accepted 9. Too busy ; I'm currently reviewing articles for Nature Cell Bio and (I thought) one for you guys? Let me check my records but I think I have an outstanding one for MSB. If not, I can probably do this if I can have until mid July. 10. Too busy ; Sorry I can't agree to review this time -- I'm currently working on reviews for Nature Cell Biology and Nature Methods.
- 33. Why should I review? Source: “Peer Review Survey 2009: Preliminary Findings”, Sense About Science http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk 16% 33% 34% 30% 46% 85% 69% 72% 90% n=3597 % agree
- 34. To review or not to review... editorial rejection review reject revise reject accept time
- 35. Post-review decision Best reviewers are clear , critical & constructive Editor can take some distance with reports to integrate and combine evaluations Not always based on a majority call Whenever possible, main points are highlighted in decision letter to delineate scope of necessary revisions
- 36. Post-revision review editorial rejection review reject revise reject accept time
- 37. Post-review decision Single round of major revision Avoid progressive ‘erosion’ of reviewers Not always possible to reach perfect unanimity Main points addressed? If there are new issues after revision, do they arise from new experiments, new analysis, tests?
- 38. manuscripts published paper author author author author reader reader reader reader reader Does all this come for free? 10 1-2 >1000 author
- 39. $
- 40. author- pay reader- pay open access subscription Th e EMBO Journal Molecul ar System s Biology
- 41. What is a ‘paper’? Text: text mining Figures: visual only Tables: a minority Supp Info: large-scale datasets, instrument output, etc...
- 42. Data transparency From bench to website
- 46. Data ‘transparency’ Re-visualization Re-analysis Data integration Data ‘searchability’
- 47. Data ‘transparency’ Re-visualization Re-analysis Data integration Data ‘searchability’
- 48. Data ‘transparency’ Re-visualization Re-analysis Data integration Data ‘searchability’
- 49. Editor?
- 50. excitement
- 52. broad
- 53. critical
- 54. reading
- 56. molecular biology systems
Editor's Notes
- #20: Thank you ... Thank you very much to the organizers for giving me the opportunity to do a little show here.. As most of you probably know, Molecular Systems Biology is the journal published by Nature Publishing Group and EMBO that covers the fields of systems biology, systems medicine and synthetic biology.
- #23: Strong roots in the community of researchers and highest quality standards are guaranteed by our Senior Editors and our Advisory Editorial Board...
- #24: Strong roots in the community of researchers and highest quality standards are guaranteed by our Senior Editors and our Advisory Editorial Board...
- #43: Open access has traditionally highlighted the role of text for text for mining purposes and accessibility to knowledge. But perhaps even more fundamental is the role of data in molecular biology. Central role of data integration implies that systems biology relies on accessibility and integrity of research data–quantitative data, computational data, and the flood of data generated by high-throughput technologies.
- #44: Typical experiment. Quantitaion of phosphorylation levels of signaling components. How many replicates? What statistics? What are the peak values? Etc...
- #45: Simply download the data directly from the figure. Figure and individual figure panels can be linked to excel tables or text files containing the..
- #46: Data used to generate the graphic depiction shown in the respective figure panel. The link with the figure, the figure legend, the rest of the paper, including materials and methods, is what gives meaning to the data. It is at an experimental stage in the sense that there is usually no standard data exchange format and part of the purpose of the experiment is to see how researchers solve the problem when given only general guidelines on the format of the tables they can submit.