1. 3/4/15
1
Panelists
Ronald
Dickman
(PRE)
Saad
Hebboul
(PRL)
Manolis
Antonoyiannakis
(PRB)
Moderator
Lance
Cooper
(University
of
Illinois)
Tutorial
for
Authors
&
Referees
APS
March
MeeLng
2015
San
Antonio,
TX
Outline
2
1. The
peer
review
process
in
a
nutshell
(1)
2. Tutorial
for
Authors
(10)
1. Manuscript
preparaLon
(3)
2. RejecLon
Without
External
Review
(1)
3. To
Resubmit
or
Not
to
Resubmit?
That
is
the
quesLon…
(3)
4. Typical
misunderstandings
&
faulty
arguments
in
corresponding
with
the
editors
(2)
5. Useful
resources
(1)
3. Tutorial
for
Referees
(4)
1. How
do
editors
select
referees?
(1)
2. Referee
reports
(3)

2. 3/4/15
2
Review process at Physical Review
peer review
internal review (by editor)
review by Editorial Board Member (EBM)
Appeal to Editor in Chief
(procedural only)
Appeal to Editor
3rd round (if needed)
2nd round
1st round
New paper
Review
process
in
a
nutshell
3
Manuscript
preparaLon
BEFORE writing your paper:
• Audience. PRL vs. PR. Style.
• Take-home message. Clarity.
• Authorship vs. acknowledgment.
WHEN submitting your paper:
• Additional information for editors & referees
• Suggested referees. Conflict of interest.
• Other relevant information
• Cover letter: Justification.
4

3. 3/4/15
3
Manuscript
preparaLon
Title: Concise, accurate, informative
Abstract: Problem under study and main findings
Intro: Problem, background, motivation, importance, findings
Methods: Theory, experiment design, derivations, etc.
Results: Findings, plots, fits, measurements, uncertainties,
assumptions
Discussion and Conclusions: Summary, take-home
message, open questions, impact
Acknowledgments: Organization and people
Reference list: Relevant or related papers
5
How
to
submit?
Important
aspects
of
the
paper:
• Title,
abstract,
introducLon,
conclusion,
references
• A
good
cover
leer
(not
the
abstract
again!)
Ac1ons
to
take
before
submi6ng:
• Proofread.
• Check
with
less
involved
colleagues.
• Proper
literature
search
(right
journal?)
• Suggest
referees
(including
new
refs.)
6

4. 3/4/15
4
What
is
it?
An
editorial
rejecLon
leer,
upon
iniLal
receipt,
with
editors’
judgment
of
impact
/
innovaLon
/
interest
/
significance
/
importance
Why?
To
preserve
Lme
&
effort
of
referees
(our
most
precious
resource)…
…
and
help
authors
find
a
beer-­‐suited
journal
with
minimal
delay
How
do
editors
decide?
Red
flags
that
may
warrant
editorial
rejecLon
-­‐
Sloppy
presentaLon,
opaque
wriLng
/
too
much
jargon
&
acronyms
-­‐
abstract
too
technical;
non-­‐understandable
by
non-­‐specialists
-­‐
introducLon:
lacks
clarity,
no
context,
excessive
self-­‐referencing,
poorly
describes
prior
work,
no
broad
picture
-­‐
inadequate
referencing:
too
many
old
/
specialized
/
self-­‐
/
‘confined’
references
-­‐
no
punch-­‐line
in
conclusions:
à
what
is
the
main
message
of
the
paper?
à
why
is
it
important?
à
how
does
it
advance
the
field?
RejecLon
Without
External
Review
(RWER)
7
To
resubmit
or
not?
That
is
the
quesLon…
• Should I resubmit my paper?
• How can I make an effective resubmission?
Ø Answer all criticism
Ø Be factual & collegial
Ø Include notes to the editor if needed
Resubmission letter: Convince the editor that
your paper deserves further consideration
8

5. 3/4/15
5
To
resubmit
or
not?
That
is
the
quesLon…
• Should I resubmit my paper?
• How can I make an effective resubmission?
Ø Answer all criticism
Ø Be factual & collegial
Ø Include notes to the editor if needed
Resubmission letter: Convince the editor that
your paper deserves further consideration
Anecdote # 1
After receiving 1st decision letter from editor:
------------------------------------------------------
“The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.
The resulting reports include a critique which is sufficiently adverse
that we cannot accept your paper on the basis of material now at hand.
We append pertinent comments.
If you feel that you can overcome or refute the criticism, you may
resubmit to Physical Review Letters. With any resubmittal, please
include a summary of changes made and a brief response to all
recommendations and criticisms.”
------------------------------------------------------
Graduate Student: I guess we should submit this elsewhere L
PhD Advisor: We are almost “in”! J
9
As
seen
from
the
authors’
perspecLve
-­‐
Referee
comments
wrong
/
unjusLfied?
à
RRR
-­‐
Referee
does
not
understand
my
paper?
à
RRR
-­‐
Referee
biased
/
unfair
/
has
compeLng
interest?
à
RRR
-­‐
Editor
wrongly
sides
with
the
criLcal
referee?
à
RRR
-­‐
Referee
asks
me
to
cite
irrelevant
papers?
à
RRR
-­‐
Editor
does
not
provide
clear
yes/no
decision?
à
RRR
-­‐
Editor
does
not
firmly
reject
my
paper?
à
RRR
Revise,
Respond
&
Resubmit
(RRR):
A
common[*]
1st-­‐round
remedy
10
[*]
But
not
universal.
See
next
slide.

6. 3/4/15
6
However,
please
keep
in
mind
that
the
Editors
need
a
clear
reason
to
publish
à
Try
to
be
a
stricter
judge
for
your
paper
than
the
referees
/
editors
would
be
à
Ask
yourself
(honestly):
Would
it
be
a
mistake
for
the
editors
NOT
to
publish
your
paper?
11
However,
please
keep
in
mind
that
the
Editors
need
a
clear
reason
to
publish
à
Try
to
be
a
stricter
judge
for
your
paper
than
the
referees
/
editors
would
be
à
Ask
yourself
(honestly):
Would
it
be
a
mistake
for
the
editors
NOT
to
publish
your
paper?
12
Anecdote # 2
Referee C, acting as adjudicator, is critical & wants substantive changes.
------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks after reviewing the paper, Referee C moves at authors’
institution as a visiting scholar. He happens to share an office with the grad
student who wrote the paper. He is present when the student receives the
editorial decision with the referee report. The student is devastated.
------------------------------------------------------
Graduate Student: Oh no! The referee is trashing my paper. He/she says it
is not suitable for Physical Review B. L
Referee C (concealing his identity): Let’s read more into this report. Is it
really that negative? J

7. 3/4/15
7
Typical
misunderstandings
&
faulty
arguments
When
corresponding
with
editors
This
subject
is
very
important,
so
you
should
publish
my
paper.
Not
every
paper
on
an
important
topic
warrants
publicaLon
in
a
high-­‐
profile
journal
The
broader
subject
may
have
broad
interest,
but
what
about
this
paper?
The
referee
found
no
mistake,
(s)he
only
said
it
is
not
interesLng.
Two
referees
recommend
publicaLon,
only
one
does
not.
Many
papers
on
this
topic
have
been
published
in
PRL,
see
....
Correctness
is
necessary
but
not
sufficient
for
publicaLon.
So
what?
Look
at
what
the
referee
said.
It
is
the
content
of
a
report
that
maers,
not
the
vote.
So,
enough
already.
This
is
an
argument
against
publicaLon,
not
for
publicaLon...
13
I
am
en/tled
to
two
rounds
of
review
and
expect
the
editor
to
have
another
two
referees
look
at
my
paper
Although
two
rounds
of
review
are
common,
they
are
not
guaranteed.
I
have
published
123
papers
and
have
an
h-­‐index
of
42.
How
can
the
editor
reject
my
paper?
The
editor
has
no
research
experience
in
this
field.
How
can
they
reject
my
paper
without
external
review?
You
published
that
prior
paper
which
is
clearly
less
sophisLcated
than
ours
We
are
mindful
of
the
authors’
prior
record,
especially
in
borderline
cases.
But
we
focus
on
the
paper
at
hand.
The
editor
approaches
the
paper
as
a
general
reader,
and
over
Lme,
builds
considerable
experience.
Also,
she
may
have
discussed
the
paper
with
(a)
other
editorial
colleagues,
or
(b)
with
an
Editorial
Board
Member.
Peer
review
is
a
complex
&
imperfect
process.
Journals
are
‘distribuLons’:
some
papers
clearly
deserved
publicaLon,
others
barely
made
it.
Maybe
the
prior
paper
was
in
a
field
that
was
hot
at
the
Lme,
and
the
bar
was
lower.
Etc.
Typical
misunderstandings
&
faulty
arguments

8. 3/4/15
8
Useful
resources
for
authors
(1) “Whitesides’
Group:
Wri/ng
a
Paper”,
George
M.
Whitesides,
Advanced
Materials
16,
1375
(2004)
A
classic
paper
on
how
to
write
scien/fic
papers
that
every
researcher
should
read.
(2)
“What
Editors
Want”,
Lynn
Worsham,
The
Chronicle
of
Higher
Educa/on,
September
8,
2008
hp://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/09/2008090801c.htm
A
journal
editor
reveals
the
most
common
mistakes
academics
make
when
they
submit
manuscripts.
(3) Strunk and White, The Elements of Style (MacMillan:
New York 1979, 3rd ed.
So
successful
that
it
is
known
not
by
its
/tle
but
as
“The
LiLle
Book”.
Check out APS tutorials on authoring & refereeing
Some editorial talks are found on internet (Google search)
We look for referees in:
• references (authors of, referees of)
• related papers in Web of Science, Google Scholar,
SPIN, NASA, APS database (authors, citing papers)
• suggested referees
• referee expertise in APS database (>60,000 referees)
• mental database
We generally avoid:
• Undesirable referees
• Coauthors (current or previous)
• Referees at same institution as authors
• Acknowledged persons
• Direct competitors (if known)
• Busy referees (currently reviewing for PR/PRL)
• Overburdened referees (> 15 mss/past year)
• Consistently slow referees (>8 weeks to review)
• Referees who consistently provide poor reports
How
do
the
editors
find
referees
for
a
paper?
16

9. 3/4/15
9
Referee
reports
-Review the manuscript
-General comments
-Technical details
-Recommendation
Tips:
• Avoid contradictions within a report.
• Be collegial and polite.
• Can provide confidential comments for the editor only.
• If you realize you are non-expert or too busy to review, alert the editor
immediately
• OK to pass paper to more qualified colleague (but let editors know)
• If you have a conflict of interest, alert the editor
• If you are qualified to review only a part of the paper, alert the editor
17
Preparing
a
Referee
Report
1) Summarize
paper:
Show
that
you
understand
the
manuscript
and
the
problem
under
study
2)
Technical
details:
•
Validity
•
Technical
problems
or
comments
•
Improvements
needed
•
Reference
list
•
Style
issues
•
Conciseness
of
presentaLon
3)
RecommendaLon:
•
Accept,
reject,
revise
and
resubmit,
etc.
•
Support
recommendaLon
Tips:
•
Avoid
contradicLons
within
a
report.
•
Be
collegial
and
polite.
•
Comments
solely
intended
for
the
editor?
18

10. 3/4/15
10
WriLng
reports
Referee’s role: Advise editors & help
authors to improve their papers
Ø Summarize result
Ø Address respective journal’s publication criteria
Ø Answer editor’s specific queries
Ø Back up claims (e.g., if it’s been done, give
references)
Ø Be diplomatic
19
20
Thank
YOU
for
supporLng
our
journals
as
authors
&
referees
(and
readers!)
Acknowledgments:
Various
APS
editors
for
their
slides
(Hernan
Rozenfeld,
Deniz
van
Heijnsbergen,
and
others)

11. 3/4/15
11
•
InfluenLal
papers
oten
controversial
•
Experts’
judgment
not
always
faultless
Example:
•
In
10
out
of
the
top-­‐20
cited
papers
in
PRL
(published
in
1991-­‐2000
in
plasmonics,
photonic
crystals
and
negaLve
refracLon)
at
least
one
(&
someLmes
both)
reports
were
negaLve
in
the
1st
round
of
review
Challenges
for
Editors
21
The editors’ role:
to conduct an impartial & thorough scientific review
Editors are not technical experts (in general)
⇓
but they do strive to make sure that:
- no obvious conflicts of interest occur
- referees are experts in the field they review
- reports are detailed and substantiated
- response of authors is complete, dispassionate, and substantiated
- review process is timely (*)
- review process is converging to a yes/no decision
- no special groups are favored/discriminated against
(*)
this
has
many
direct
implicaLons
22

12. 3/4/15
12
Editorial constraints:
time vs. depth of review
11500 submissions to PRL in 2008
Staff: 12 full time editors
950 manuscripts / editor / year
4 new manuscripts / editor / workday
Average time per manuscript ≤ 2 hrs
(a highly uneven distribution)
23
George
Whitesides
on
wriLng
a
paper
è
hp://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1305035664639/Whitesides-­‐ACS-­‐WriLng-­‐a-­‐ScienLfic-­‐Paper.pdf
hps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mrRH2aS98
______________________________________________________________________