A guide to peer review

Abstract

Richard Smith in his outstanding book, The Trouble with Medical Journals, describes as Editor of the BMJ, attempting to improve the journal's peer-review process by mapping it out. The result was a flowchart some 5 feet long, full of loops and swirls. Any journal editor attempting the same today is advised to read Irene Hames' book first, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Hames avoids any discussion of the merits and shortcomings of peer review. Instead, she asserts that peer review is here, most scientific journals use it, it's fundamental to scholarly publishing, and so it should be done to the highest possible standard. Her book will certainly help that.Hames' aim is to provide a manual to help editors, their editorial colleagues, and staff, and to give practical guidance on all aspects of peer review, creating an awareness of the issues involved and potential problems. This she has achieved, taking the reader from manuscript submission, through the peer review process, to decision making. Online submission systems are discussed, as are reviewers as a precious resource.Written from Hames' professional experience as Managing Editor of The Plant Journal from its inception in 1990, the focus is a little uneven in places: too much emphasis is placed on security and advice on paper-based manuscript submission systems is outdated. A more useful analysis of creating a manual of standard operating procedures with a history of policy changes is passed over lightly. At the risk of being obvious to some, the book would benefit from more explanation of principles such as confidentiality. A discussion of decisions that can be made by editors about manuscripts other than the basic five outcomes explained would complete the guide.The greatest value is the second half of the book in which not only are there two extensively detailed chapters on what constitutes publication misconduct and how to deal with it, and on the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors, and editorial staff, but also some 80 pages of appendices. These extremely useful checklists, forms, guidance, and sample letters provide salient information, and act as an excellent resource for all involved in the publication of scientific journals.Hames offers essential instruction for editors at all levels. Reviewers, even authors, would profit from reading this book. But it will be of most use to those starting a new position in the publication of scientific journals; from academic Editor-in-Chief to Editorial Assistant, it should be prerequisite reading. Richard Smith in his outstanding book, The Trouble with Medical Journals, describes as Editor of the BMJ, attempting to improve the journal's peer-review process by mapping it out. The result was a flowchart some 5 feet long, full of loops and swirls. Any journal editor attempting the same today is advised to read Irene Hames' book first, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Hames avoids any discussion of the merits and shortcomings of peer review. Instead, she asserts that peer review is here, most scientific journals use it, it's fundamental to scholarly publishing, and so it should be done to the highest possible standard. Her book will certainly help that. Hames' aim is to provide a manual to help editors, their editorial colleagues, and staff, and to give practical guidance on all aspects of peer review, creating an awareness of the issues involved and potential problems. This she has achieved, taking the reader from manuscript submission, through the peer review process, to decision making. Online submission systems are discussed, as are reviewers as a precious resource. Written from Hames' professional experience as Managing Editor of The Plant Journal from its inception in 1990, the focus is a little uneven in places: too much emphasis is placed on security and advice on paper-based manuscript submission systems is outdated. A more useful analysis of creating a manual of standard operating procedures with a history of policy changes is passed over lightly. At the risk of being obvious to some, the book would benefit from more explanation of principles such as confidentiality. A discussion of decisions that can be made by editors about manuscripts other than the basic five outcomes explained would complete the guide. The greatest value is the second half of the book in which not only are there two extensively detailed chapters on what constitutes publication misconduct and how to deal with it, and on the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors, and editorial staff, but also some 80 pages of appendices. These extremely useful checklists, forms, guidance, and sample letters provide salient information, and act as an excellent resource for all involved in the publication of scientific journals. Hames offers essential instruction for editors at all levels. Reviewers, even authors, would profit from reading this book. But it will be of most use to those starting a new position in the publication of scientific journals; from academic Editor-in-Chief to Editorial Assistant, it should be prerequisite reading.