How to Survive Peer Review

Abstract

Peer review is considered a fundamental tenet of scientific publication. The ambitions of many an author depend on it; yet little is formally taught about the process. Advice tends to be anecdotal and highly subjective. Wagner, Godlee and Jefferson, three experienced editors in scientific publishing, have written a concise and often witty guide to peer review in six chapters. Their advice is directed not only to those on the receiving end but also to peer reviewers themselves—an acknowledgment that faults occur on both sides. I found two chapters particularly interesting. The first is the title chapter, which deals with overcoming peer review related to journal publication, conference abstract submission and grant application. It offers a didactic checklist for the aspiring author to follow, starting with advice on how to choose your journal. This is the kind of information that you might otherwise acquire through bitter experience or from a colleague who has successfully published. The chapter then goes on to outline the various ways a journal may respond to your paper after peer review—rejection, acceptance, conditional acceptance—and how you cope with these. Throughout this guide, summary boxes reinforce the ideas being presented. The novel aspect to these boxes is the use of irony. For instance, one box is titled ‘How to ensure that your paper is rejected’, with eighteen suggestions to irritate the editor. These include ‘on no account read the instructions to authors’ and ‘insert figures and tables into the text as the whim takes you’. The summary box on how not to get your abstract published has similar bulleted suggestions, including ‘pick the conference solely by the exotic destination’ and ‘prepare your abstract on your aunt's ancient typewriter’. The other chapter which I particularly enjoyed was on informal peer review. This includes asking a colleague (usually your boss) for an opinion on a piece of written material, and also advice on how to provide constructive criticism when asked. The summary box on how not to carry out informal peer review is worth the price of the book itself and will ring bells with anybody who has had to submit a thesis. Examples are ‘phrase your corrections with as much emotion as possible’, ‘sound increasingly exasperated as you progress through the manuscript’, ‘act on the basis of ignorance’ and ‘hold your prejudices to the fore’. I must point out that this book is not frivolous but uses irony to make its points. Easily read in an evening, it provides an excellent and amusing introduction to peer review.