Writing an editorial for a scientific journal

Advanced Search The quality of editorial reviews is critical to the success of any scholarly journal, and the Journal of Pediatric Psychology JPP is no exception. Reviewers generously volunteer their time and intellectual energy to provide critiques of manuscripts that serve the critical function of enhancing the quality of science that is published in JPP Drotar, a.

Writing an editorial for a scientific journal

Advanced Search The quality of editorial reviews is critical to the success of any scholarly journal, and the Journal of Pediatric Psychology JPP is no exception. Reviewers generously volunteer their time and intellectual energy to provide critiques of manuscripts that serve the critical function of enhancing the quality of science that is published in JPP Drotar, a.

Under tight timelines and in the context of multiple responsibilities, reviewers are asked to assume the difficult task of reviewing manuscripts that are often complex and detailed. Reviewers should also consult the JPP website www. Generally, at least three reviews are invited for each manuscript.

Given the extraordinary breadth in the content of manuscripts that are submitted to JPP, it is not uncommon for members of the editorial board and reviewer panel to be asked to review manuscripts that contain content that is outside of their specific area of expertise.

writing an editorial for a scientific journal

The managing editor reviews each manuscript independently but he or she does not make a final decision and write the decision letter to the author until all of the reviews are in. Reviewer timeliness is critical for the following tasks: Thanks to the responsiveness of our reviewers and managing editors, the mean turn around time for an editorial decision and feedback to the author for initial manuscript submissions to JPP over the past year has been 32 days.

This is an enviable track record for the first full year of the current team of managing editors, editorial board, and reviewer panel that we hope to sustain. So there is clearly room for improvement. I recognize that there will be occasions when a review assignment comes at a very difficult time and cannot be accepted.

However, if you need to decline a review or decide to accept a reviewwe ask that you let us know as soon as possible so we can invite other reviewers.

On average, managing editors of JPP invite at least four reviewers in order to obtain three reviews.

writing an editorial for a scientific journal

Moreover, it is not uncommon to ask five to six reviewers in order to obtain three reviews. Delays in acceptance or decline of a review prolong the editorial process and create uncertainty among managing editors about whether to invite another reviewer.

On occasion, multiple competing responsibilities can also limit the timeliness of well-intentioned reviewers who have accepted an invitation to contribute a review.

For this reason, if you see that you are going to be late with a review, or cannot complete it after having accepted the assignment, please let the managing editor know as soon as possible. How to Enhance the Quality of the Content of Reviews What are the critical elements of the content of an effective review?

The most important characteristics of an effective review are clarity, specificity, constructiveness, and thoroughness Goldbeck-Wood, ; Hyman, A review needs to inform the managing editor and author of the major strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript.

In the event that a revised manuscript is requested, which is often the case, a review should provide clear, detailed suggestions for specific changes to improve the clarity of writing and the quality of the scientific contribution to the field of pediatric psychology.

This is by no means an easy task: I strongly encourage reviewers to be honest in their appraisal of a manuscript and not pull their editorial punches in providing critique to authors.

The constructiveness of a review is operationalized by concrete suggestions to improve the quality of the writing, the science, and significance of the work.

The identification of problems should identify both major and minor problems. A third relevant content area relates to gaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities in the presentation of information e.

Here are several suggestions to help reviewers organize their reviews: First, in order to orient the author and managing editor to the most salient points of the critique, it is helpful to provide a brief overview about the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Second, I recommend that reviewers organize their critique by sections of the manuscript e. However, reviewers may prefer to state their key concerns about the manuscript prior to a sequential listing of key points in their review.

Effective reviews clearly distinguish between primary and secondary points of critique. Primary points are the key determinants of the decision to reject the manuscript or the critical issues that must be addressed in a revision in order to recommend publication see previous section on the content of reviews.

Reviewers should keep in mind that minor matters of editorial style will be managed by the copy editor and need not be a focus of the review. Represent the Content of Reviews Succinctly and Clearly Authors face a formidable challenge in responding to each of the editorial points that are made by the reviewers and the managing editor.

The combination of detailed reviews and a decision letter can yield more than six single-spaced pages of critique. For this reason, we ask reviewers to be as concise as possible in their reviews while being thorough which is exactly what authors are asked to do.

A comprehensive review can usually be conducted in two single-spaced pages.In the event that a revised manuscript is requested, which is often the case, a review should provide clear, detailed suggestions for specific changes to improve the clarity of writing and the quality of the scientific contribution to the field of pediatric psychology.

It is an important and difficult job to write and publish an academic paper. A large percentage of the manuscripts that are submitted to academic journals for publication are rejected because the.

Mar 06,  · In most of the journals letters are evaluated as other manuscripts. Submission of a letter, writing rules, and evaluation steps resemble to those required for manuscripts.

Most of the editors of the journals expect to receive brief, and clearly comprehensible letters. Generally, certan limits are set. The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Before submitting a manuscript for publication, it is highly advisable to have a professional editing firm copy-edit your manuscript.

An article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal will be scrutinized critically by the editorial board before it . Science Journals: editorial policies Any changes in authorship must be approved in writing by all of the original authors. a Science Journal may publish an Editorial Expression of Concern.

To sum up, a good editorial is either one or more of the following: it is an opinion maker, it is reconciliatory between contrary viewpoints or standpoints, it is balanced in its analysis of evidence and events, and it is, manifest or otherwise, crusading in its thrust.

Science Journals: editorial policies | Science | AAAS