790405 Review, Revision & Resubmission for Doctoral Candidates (in Eng.)

Type
Lecture and exercise
Semester hours
2
Lecturer (assistant)
Buyel, Johannes , Pröbstl-Haider, Ulrike
Organisation
Offered in
Sommersemester 2024
Languages of instruction
Englisch
Content

Doctoral studies course on manuscript review processes
-actors: authors, editor in chief, edtior, reviewer, editorial manager, publisher
-editorial board persons
-journal scope -> topical collection vs journal, selection of suitable journal -> open access vs fee-for-service -> costs
-use of pre-print servers -> conflict with plagiarims check
-submission requitements, formats
-check for completness -> cover letter, main text, author approvals
-plagiarism check -> flagging, software tools -> impact of large language models
-initiale quality control -> scope, novelty
-reviewer recruiting -> declines, non-responder, using editorial board member and peers
-reviewer communication -> delays, non-responder
-review process: [our paper -> authentic reviewer comments but -> no major mistakes]; better: example manuscripts with broader spectrum of mistakes -> use evaluation sheet -> use input from bioarchive or publications from "poor" journals
-evaluation criteria -> figure quality, statistical analysis, controls, plausibility, references, quantitative results
-evaluation -> accept, minor revision, major revision, reject but re-submit, reject
-revision -> how to handle reviewer comments (read, rest, respond), revision formats (table, list), rebuttle, personal biases, track-changes, reviewer re-invitation (or only editorial decision)
-final decision -> reject (plan B for authors), reject but resubmit, accept, language editing
-acceptance -> integration of reviewer feedback and handling editor comments
-proofs -> online, pdf, typical corrections -> incomplete references, coherence of reference list and in-text citations, figure formatting, copyright of content -> recycling of material from previous publications, especially doctoral thesis, reviews etc.
-publication type -> open access vs fee for service -> copyright, payment
-reviewer credit -> crediting platforms, name disclosure, reviewer comment disclosure -> benefits and drawbacks
Previous knowledge expected


Objective (expected results of study and acquired competences)

The students are able to understand the relevance of the review process. They have insights into the structures within a journal and the decision making process behind. They are able to respond to a scientific review and to write a review in their respective research field.
You can find more details like the schedule or information about exams on the course-page in BOKUonline.