N.B. This is a new system, and so wrinkles will need to be ironed out.
Please provide feedback on any aspect of this review system - the way it
works, this page, etc.
Coaching reviews
Also consult the review process page
carefully:
Principle
The usual system for many journals is double-blind, peer review. This
means that people of similar standing to you (peers) review your article, but
you do not know who they are and they do not know who you, author, is.
However, S&G receives ms from many types authors - from a variety of disciplines,
countries, professions, academic traditions, cultures, and so on. In addition, some people question the
validity of double-blind reviews, saying that they do not necessarily help to
produce the best quality articles.
S&G therefore operates what I call a coaching review
process. The review of version 1 of your ms will still remain double
blind. However, after you have revised v1 of your ms to produce version 2,
you and your reviewers may get to know each others names. The reviewer will
then 'take you by the hand', as it were, and guide you through the
revision process, giving you feedback directly. The reviewer will become your coach.
This has generally
resulted in higher quality articles. This may be due to the simple fact that
personal interaction motivates, that knowing who the reviewer and author are and
interaction with each other encourage greater engagement in the writing and
review process. If things are not clear below, make
an intelligent guess and go ahead, but do indicate to me.
Advantages
Some of the advantages of a coaching review process include: |
-
More direct communication
between author and reviewer.
-
Higher quality articles.
-
Faster returns, and thus publication
in less time.
-
More implication
by both authors and
reviewers.
-
Greater satisfaction on the part of all players (authors, reviewers,
editor).
-
Authors may make new contacts through this process.
|
Structure & rules
However, a coaching review system requires adherence to a clear structure and your diligence
in following
the structure in a detailed way. This is important for two reasons.
First, the coaching review process will only work and help you produce a high
quality article if the procedures are followed to the letter. Second, the
reviewers themselves do their work voluntarily; they get little reward for
difficult work from which you, not they, benefit. Following procedures
will help your coaching reviewers to to do their work, which benefits you in improving the quality of your article.
Overview of
structure & procedure
Ms |
Author |
|
Editor |
|
Reviewer |
|
v1of
your ms |
A. Send anonymous ms to the editor. |
|
B. Ed chooses reviewers.
→ |
|
C.
Ms is reviewed double blind. |
╗
▼ |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
▼╔ |
◄
← |
D. Ed decides path to follow (reject,
revise, v2 (coaching or blind), f, etc. |
←
◄ |
Reviewers send their reviews to Ed |
╝
◄ |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
v2 of
your ms |
E. If Ed
asks for v2, for 2nd round of reviews, author
prepares v2 of ms, with reviews and responses at ms
start. (See
http://www.unice.fr/sg/authors/review_process.htm) |
►
→ |
Ed decides on blind or coaching review.
If coaching,
then Ed sends v2, or Ed asks author, to send v2 to
reviewer-coach. |
→
► |
F1.
Reviewer-coach reviews v2 seen. |
╗
▼ |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
▼╔ H. Author
prepares f or
v3 of
ms:
▼ f
or v3
▼ |
◄
← |
G. Editor may add comments to the reviewers'.
Editor will decide if author needs to prepare v3 or if
author can go to
final version. |
←
◄ |
F2. Reviewer sends
their review of v2 directly to
author, with CC to editor. |
╝
◄ |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
v3 |
▼
|
|
If v3, author sends v3 directly to
reviewers with CC to editor (as v2 above). |
→
► |
|
→
► |
Reviewer-coach reviews v3
seen. |
╗
▼ |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
▼
▼╔ |
◄
← |
Ed may add comments to the reviewers'. Ed will
decide if author can go to
final version. |
←
◄ |
Reviewer sends their
reviews of v3 directly to author, with
CC to editor. |
╝
◄ |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
f |
Author prepares final version
based on reviews and Ed comments, including author responses (send to
Editor). |
→
► |
Ed will ask you to prepare the final
version for publication. |
|
|
|
Detailed steps and
instructions
Please read this carefully, and follow the steps.
(Draft only from here on.)
Round 1 |
Blind review |
Author |
A. Prepare an anonymous v1 of your ms. Send to editor. Makes
sure that the ms filename is correct, and that you include all the elements
in body of email: check list for drafts,
cover sheet, exclusivity letter.
More details here. |
Editor |
B. I will select 1 to 3 reviewers, and send to them your anonymous ms. |
Reviewers |
C.
The reviewers will send me back their commentaries and
recommendations. |
Editor |
D. I will decide on one of four routes (a) continue the blind review
process, (b) move to a coaching review process, (c) reject the
article, (d) invite you to prepare the final version (rare). If (b), then we will go to the next round below. |
|
|
Round 2 |
Move to coaching review process; prepare
v2 |
. |
E.
Prepare a named v2 of your ms. See below for elements to include.
Send v2 to your coaches (reviewers indicated by editor).
-
Your ms v2 will include:
reviews of v1, with your (author's) responses, and the new
revised version (v2) of your ms. Do not indicate which reviewer
did which commentary. Use the reviewer id, usually of the form RevA,
RevB, etc.
-
Send your
intro letter to each reviewer independently, with CC to the editor for
each. (It is best at this point, that reviewers
do not know each others' ids.) You will know them, and they you.
But it is only at the end that they should know each other. This is to
avoid incluence on each other, thus your getting as wide a spectrum of views
as possible.
-
Then send v2 of
your ms to each reviewer independently, attached to your email.
Do not CC me.
-
In all emails, use
the correct subject line, with the ms ID,
with reviewer ID, such as RevA
-
Do not
send the check list at this point.
|
Reviewers |
F. The reviewers will send back their commentaries and recommendations, to you
directly, and CC to me. |
Editor |
G. I may send you further comments. For example, if two reviewers
vary widely in their assessments, or if I wish to emphasize something
(e.g., clarify the debriefing process).
-
I will also indicate whether or not you need to prepare v3 of
your article, or if you can prepare the final version.
-
Split opinion: It may be that one reviewer would like to
see v3, but that another reviewer thinks that the article can now be
published. In this case, I will probably, ask you to go for v3, but
then you need to send it only to the reviewer requesting v3.
|
Round 3 |
Prepare v3 or final version |
Author |
H.
Depending on returns from the reviewers in round 2, prepare v3 or final version.
-
If reviewers want v3, then follow procedure as in round 2 (above).
You will need to wait until all the reviewers are in in
order to fanalize v3. I may add some comments to those of the
reviewers.
-
If reviewers think that you can
prepare the final version, then contact me before
preparing and sending the final
version. In any case, the final version needs to contain your
responses to reviewers at the start of the ms.
|
Summary |
of elements to
include |
Author |
See below the elements to include
|
Rules |
Some guideline for
playing the coaching reviews game |
Guidelines |
The main advantage of a coaching review is that you will do a better
article. However, that will only work if you follow the procedures
closely and carefully. It will also work much better if your attitude
is one of striving to improve, or focussing on quality, or seeking and
accepting reviewers' help. Doing this will help your coaching
reviewers to do their
work, and thus to provide you with the best possible counsel on improving
your article.
To help make the system work well and to help your
reviewers, please use the following some guidelines:
-
Contact your reviewers as
little as possible outside the usual
times (see above). Only contact your reviewers exceptionally if it
is really warranted.
-
Provide reviewers with complete emails, ms files, documents, etc. (as
outlined below and elsewhere in this guide).
-
Send reviewers reminders only when they are very late.
Give them 50% more time than is indicated on the evaluation form (usually
1 month) or than they have agreed to. Reviewers may tell you in
advance that they will need more time.
-
Revise you ms as fully as you are able, according to your
reviewers recommendations.
-
Provide clear responses and revisions lists to reviews
(and include them at the start of your ms, as indicated below).
-
Respect reviewers' opinions about your ms. Usually, if
you have moved to round 2 and to a coaching review, it means that your ms
has real potential for publication. You should not therefore be in a
situation where you know the identity of someone who rejects your ms.
-
If you disagree with with reviewer, do not write a book in
reply. Be succinct. Place your comment in the appropriate
place in your responses.
-
Remember that your coaches are busy, that they do this work
with little benefit.
-
Remember that your reviewers' view of your article is much
closer to that of a journal reader than to your own view. It
is difficult to see one's one writing and drafts in the same was as an
objective, outside reader. If a reviewer does not understand, it is
far more likely that it is because of a problem in your ms than because of
the reviewer.
-
Ask yourself: "Do I want to do a high quality article?", "Do I
want other people to cite my article?".
-
Keep a sense of modesty or humility.
-
Write for the reader, not for you.
-
Be sure to include relevant
references to the literature, particularly article published in
S&G. Reviewers often 'complain' that authors have not referred to
the relevant S&G literature. Better to do this at the outset, rather
to have to change rework a later version of the article.
-
When you prepare your final version, be sure to include
acknowledgement to your reviewers, especially if they were
particularly helpful.
-
Do not put pressure
in any way on your reviewers. For example, do not say "I hope the
article is now ready for publication". Say "I would be happy to get
more comments about how to improve the article further".
-
After you receive the
published article, make sure that you send a copy to your reviewers,
and confirm with me that you gave done this.
|
Summary of elements
to include in v2 and v3 of your ms.
It is important to adhere strictly to
the following. Your objective is to make it as easy as possible for your
reviewer to do her or his work. Normally, you will send only one single
email with one single word attachment. The contents of each are
summarized below. Make sure that each contains the correct elements.
Inside
email
(in this order):
-
Short letter to reviewer.
-
Copy of blank evaluation form. I will have sent sent you this
when I sent you comments from round 1, and indicate to you that you will move
to a coaching review process. (If I forgot to send it, remind me. Do
not use the version on this web site.)
-
Check list for drafts (ignore items
concerning your anonymity) for all items that you have done. Do not
tick (check) items that you have not done!
Inside your
attached
word file (.doc; do not use .docx, word for vista):
Construct a single word file,
with the following elements in the following order.
-
Review of RevA (first reviewer)
+ your responses (+ revision list). Include here your responses to the reviewer and the list of
revisions that you have made to the previous version of your ms.
-
You can place your responses be at the end of the review or
insert them into at appropriate points in the review.
-
Make sure that you demarcate your text clearly from the
reviewer's (e.g., using italics or colour).
When you include this element, include only the reviewer's commentary
(not the form text, not the evaluation grid and not the publication
recommendation).
-
If you received from your
reviewer, the review inside a word file, then paste it into your single ms
word file.
-
If the reviewer's word file
contains large chunks of embedded comments in different places, then
paste these in sequence into your single word file, if necessary indicating
the section of your ms to which the review chuck refers.
-
If the reviewer's word file
contains a small number small but substantive (content)
chunks of comments in different places, then paste the main ones into
your single word file, if necessary indicating the section of your ms to
which the review chuck refers. No need to paste the formatting or
style comments, but you need to attend to these in your new ms.
-
If the reviewer's word file
contains a large number of small chunks of comments in
different places, then attach this old ms after your new ms.
-
Review of RevB (second reviewer)
+ your responses. Same as above.
-
Review of RevC (third reviewer)
+ your responses. Same as above.
-
Use clear visual separator, e.g., ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,
not 'new page'.
-
Your ms: Title, author(s), abstract, keywords, text.
-
Include diagrams, graphics, etc. inside your word file. Do
not attach as separate files; this is for the final version.
-
Do not include bio-statements or contact details at end; this is
for the final version only.
-
Use the
check list for more info.
-
Filename in
correct format.
The guiding
principle is to make the material as
easy as possible for your reviewer to
access and to follow. |
Acknowledgement: My thanks go to Richard Teach for the idea of
a coaching review.
|