#ReadingList: Handling the manuscript review process

Reviewing manuscripts can be a daunting task, especially for the first time. On the surface, it may seem easy enough, but it actually requires the ability to perform multiple tasks, from summarising and describing the manuscript’s contents to assessing critically the work and providing suggestions for areas of improvement - not to mention the onus for fact-checking and source verification on the Reviewers.  I am by no means an expert in any way so I learnt a lot from the following works. Some resources on how to reply to reviewers' comments, how to handle rejection, and the entire editorial process are also included. This is not a comprehensive list, so do find the latest publications on this topic.

Good luck and happy reviewing!

• Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13.
• Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2006). A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 34(2), 92-99.
• Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87-92.
• Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5-12.
• Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87-101.
• Hoppin Jr, F. G. (2002). How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(8), 1019-1023.
• Roberts, L. W., Coverdale, J., Edenharder, K., & Louie, A. (2004). How to review a manuscript: A “down-to-earth” approach. Academic Psychiatry, 28(2), 81–87.
• Samet, J. M. (1999). Dear Author - Advice from a retiring editor. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(5), 433-436.
• Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1), 79-83.
• Woolley, K. L., & Barron, J. P. (2009). Handling manuscript rejection: Insights from evidence and experience. Chest, 135(2), 573-577.
• Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2002). Scientific Writing: Easy When You Know How. London: BMJ Books.
• Murray, R. (2013). Writing for Academic Journals. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. 

Read More

#ReadingList: Assessing Thesis

One of the things that I learned (albeit a bit later in my PhD journey) about thesis writing, was that of knowing how Examiners read and assess theses. The Mullins and Kiley’s papers definitely helped (and still helping) me in wading through the assessment process. More recent papers (see further below) might also provide a broader view on this matter. I hope these resources will help you too.

• Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386. 
• Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2004). Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 121-135. 
• Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2006). Opening the black box: How examiners assess your thesis. In: Denholm, C. & Evans, T. (Eds.), Doctorates Downunder: Keys to Successful Doctoral Study in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 200-207). Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press. 

• Cooksey, R., & McDonald, G. (2019). How Will My Thesis/Dissertation/Portfolio Be Examined and Judged? In Surviving and Thriving in Postgraduate Research (pp. 1083-1116). Singapore: Springer. 
• Golding, C. (2017). Advice for writing a thesis (based on what examiners do). Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 46-60. 
• Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners do: What thesis students should know. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 563-576. 
• Sharmini, S., Spronken-Smith, R., Golding, C., & Harland, T. (2015). Assessing the doctoral thesis when it includes published work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 89-102.

Read More