In October 2013, Donald Samulack, President, U.S. operations at Editage, attended the SciELO 15 Years Conference held to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the SciELO Network. The primary focus of the conference was on open access publishing and the challenges currently faced by journals. The panel of speakers at the conference included Donald Samulack. Donald presented an interesting session titled Can an Author’s Editor Help Expedite Peer Review of the Manuscript They Edit? as part of the panel on “Experiences, Solutions, Products, and Services of Scientific Communication.” Editage was one of the sponsors of the event, which was held from October 22-25 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The conference attracted a daily visitors as 400 academicians, including editors, publishers, researchers, and authors.

1. Can Authors Editor’s Help
Expedite Peer Review of the
Manuscripts They Edit?
Presented by:
Donald Samulack, PhD
President, U.S. Operations
Cactus Communications / Editage

2. The World Is so Flat
…It’s Starting to Curl!
2

3. Survival of the Fittest
3
• Territory size shows the proportion of all scientific papers published in 2001 written by authors living there.
• The number of scientific papers published by researchers in the United States was more than three times as
many as were published by the second highest-publishing population, Japan.
Source: http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=205 (April 15, 2013)
Science Research

4. Survival of the Fittest
4
Science Growth
• This map shows the growth in scientific research of territories between 1990 and 2001. If there was no increase in scientific
publications that territory has no area on the map.
• In 1990, 80 scientific papers were published per million people living in the world, this increased to 106 per million by 2001.
This increase was experienced primarily in territories with strong existing scientific research. However, the United States,
with the highest total publications in 2001, experienced a smaller increase since 1990 than that in Japan, China, Germany and
the Republic of Korea. Singapore had the greatest per person increase in scientific publications.
Source: http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=206 (April 15, 2013)

5. There Is a Tsunami Coming
5
Current and projected publication trends
Source: Royal Society of London, Knowledge, Networks, and Nations, 2011

6. There is a Tsunami Coming
6 Source: http://sciencewatch.com/grr/building-bricks (April 15, 2013)

7. “Unfortunately, neither the researcher’s fascination with their
work, nor their desire for a clear-cut recipe for success in
publishing is of much help in actually getting published.”
—Benson and Silver, 2013 (What Editors Want)
The Research Dilemma
7

8. Anything you do that makes the job of the Journal Editor or
the Peer Reviewer easier, makes the manuscript more
attractive!
Success = Pleasing the Gatekeepers
8

9. • By-line bias
• Institutional bias
• Geographic bias
• Language bias
• Research integrity and ethics bias
• Methodology bias
• By the time the journal editor and/or the reviewer has read the
title and the abstract, bias has set in!
• Bias is unfortunately a by-product of scientific scrutiny.
Journal Editor and Reviewer Bias
9

10. Q: How do East-Asian submissions compare with those
from other non-English speaking countries?
– In terms of compliance with ethical guidelines –
Bias Surrounding Research Integrity
10
1.9%
44.4%
35.2%
18.5%
East Asian submissions better
East Asian submissions worse
Submissions from all non-English-speaking countries similar
I don't know
A survey of 54 journal editors of
English-language US and European journals

11. Quirks of the English Language
11
You don’t have to be really smart to read this. In the
English language it doesn't matter in what order the
letters are in a word. The only important thing is that
the first and last letters are positioned in the right
place. The rest of the letters can be jumbled and you
can still read it without problem. This is because the
human brain does not read every letter by itself, but
looks for sentence and language patterns.
You dno’t have to be raelly smrat to raed tihs. In the
Elgnsih lugnagae it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the
ltteers are in a wrod. The olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht
the frist and lsat ltteers are pneiostiod in the rghit
pclae. The rset of the lrtetes can be jmulebd and you
can sitll raed it wiuthot porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
huamn barin deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but
lokos for sncetnene and luganage petatnrs.

12. Common Reviewer’s Criticisms
12
Importance of the Topic
• Rehash of established facts
• Insignificant research question
• Irrelevant or unimportant topic
• Low reader interest
• Little clinical relevance
• Not generalizable
Study Design
• Poor experimental design
• Vague/inadequate method description
• Methods lack sufficient rigor
• Failure to account for confounders
• No control or improper control
• No hypothesis
• Biased protocol
• Small sample size
• Inappropriate statistical methods,
or statistics not applied properly
Adapted from: Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. What they don’t teach in medical
school. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.

13. Common Reviewer’s Criticisms
13
Overall Presentation of
Study and Findings
• Poor organization
• Too long and verbose
• Failure to communicate clearly
• Poor grammar, syntax, or spelling
• Excessively self-promotional
• Poorly written abstract
Interpretation of the Findings
• Erroneous or unsupported conclusions
• Conclusions disproportionate to results
• Study design does not support inferences
made
• Inadequate link of findings to practice
• Uncritical acceptance of statistical results
• Failure to consider alternative
explanations
• Unexplained inconsistencies
• Inflation of the importance of the findings
• Interpretation not concordant with the
data
• Inadequate discussion
Adapted from: Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. What they don’t teach in medical
school. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.

14. • The pending impact of the publication
tsunami, administrative challenges of manuscript
triage, growing burden of peer review, and inefficiencies in
journal production processes necessitate studies on how to
make the process more efficient.
• While we can’t “fix” the tsunami – and we are probably
only experiencing the first swell – we can look up-stream
to build efficiencies in pre-submission and pre-peer review
processes.
Looking for Solutions
14

15. • What is the role of professional editing services (author’s
editors) in helping non-native English-speaking (NNES)
authors get their work published?
• Is there a place for manuscript screening services?
• Is there a rationale for commercialization of peer review?
• Where should efforts be placed?
Looking for Solutions
15

16. • First, we looked for weaknesses in how journals structure their
“Instructions for Authors” in an attempt to identify how journals
should communicate these instructions more effectively.
— Best Poster at the Council for Science Editors meeting in Montreal, Canada
in May, 2013 (a copy of the poster can be found at our booth)
• More recently, we asked whether there were any specific errors peer
reviewers most frequently point out in manuscripts of non-native
English-speaking (NNES) authors that an author’s editor could/should
fix before manuscript submission; the premise being that if these
could be fixed before submission, then the burden on the peer
reviewer would be lessened, and the process expedited.
Research by Editage
16

17. Study Design
17
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in
Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

18. Study Results (Slide 1 of 3)
18
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in
Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

19. Study Results (Slide 2 of 3)
19
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in
Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

20. Study Results (Slide 3 of 3)
20
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in
Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

21. • An author’s editor, in addition to checking the grammar, writing
quality, and style of manuscripts they edit, should point out
instances of incomplete and unclear reporting, especially in the
Methods and Results sections. This is crucial for the study to be
able to be replicated by other research groups.
• Special attention should also be paid to ensure that figures and
tables are consistent with (but not redundant to) the
information presented in the text.
Study Conclusions (1 of 2)
21

22. • Further, an author’s editor should provide the author tips to
improve the overall structural organization of the Results and
Discussions sections.
• A qualified author’s editor helping an author address these
aspects before submission will allow the peer reviewer to focus
on the validity of the science and novelty of the study.
• Thus, an author’s editor can indirectly help expedite the peer
review process.
Study Conclusions (2 of 2)
22