- Email: [email protected]
Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsap
Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research Shane P. Dessellea,∗, Aleda M. Chenb, Mohamed Aminc, Parisa Aslanid, Dalia Dawoude,f, Michael J. Millerg, Lotte Stig Norgaardh a
Touro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA Cedarville, University, Cedarville, OH, USA c Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon d University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia e National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK f Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt g Texas A&M Health Sciences Center, College Station, TX, USA h University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark b
ABSTRACT
In spite of concerns about the lack of recognition for its conduct, peer review remains the backbone of scientific evaluation and advancement of scientific knowledge. Given the challenges and evolution in the peer review system, collegiality among authors, reviewers, editors, and even consumers of content is more important than ever. While general guidance has been provided recently in the pharmacy literature, this commentary provides both philosophical underpinnings and specific mechanics for enhancing effectiveness of reviews and improving the quality of writing for authors concurrently, thus examining each major section in an original research contribution. Generosity, courtesy, diligence, thoroughness, and empathy are required of us all to advance the scientific paradigm of our discipline and profession.
Peer-reviewing: individual and system-level considerations Currently, peer-reviewed journal articles serve as a primary means of communication among scholars for advancing science and a profession/discipline and are often the “currency” by which we measure an individual's contributions for promotion, reward, and other achievements. Given the challenges for authors, reviewers, and even consumers of this mode of scholarly communication, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars wear the hats of author, reviewer, and reader, this commentary aims to provide some helpful suggestions to improve understanding and facilitate success among our colleagues in this process. We present to authors what reviewers are often looking for and, concurrently to reviewers, some things to consider when performing an effective review. The process of peer review has come under increasing scrutiny. The peer review “system” or the process of submission by authors, invitations to potential reviewers by editors, and submission of reviews and adjudication of publication decisions by editors, has been deemed as “unsustainable” due to the increasing service burden and lack of recognition of reviewers.1 We do not at all disagree that processes, recognition, feedback, and metrics to evaluate quality in peer reviewing
∗
can and should be improved.2 However, we are unsure as to whether this is a “system” fix. Who would fix the system, and under what privilege, obligation, or authority would they be doing so? Attempts to make wholesale changes or adopt wholly different models inherent to the scientific process have helped to breed deleterious actors such as predatory journals and conferences.3 Nonetheless, Malcom provided excellent recommendations for improving peer review, and we share his opinion that changes will concomitantly assist all stakeholders in the process, including publishers, reviewers, authors, and even readers. These changes include providing more structured feedback mechanisms for reviewers, mitigating bias, and recognizing and educating everyone involved on the valuable contributions they make toward the process. Those valuable contributions are part of a collegial undertaking vital to all of us in the academy to advance science without undue burden on a select few. Hasegawa acknowledges the difficulty in acquiring 2–3 quality reviews for a paper, i.e., often having to invite 10–12 reviewers, many of whom might not deliver what is promised or do so in a relatively slipshod fashion.4 While peer reviewing can be a relatively thankless job, it remains part of the larger collegial endeavor with which we invest and rely. Some have pointed to a paucity, if not crisis, in collegiality growing more moribund with the passage of time.5 If everyone took a
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.P. Desselle).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054 Received 29 April 2019; Accepted 29 April 2019 1551-7411/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Shane P. Desselle, et al., Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
collegial and generous approach to advancing the scientific process, their profession, their discipline, and their colleagues, there would likely be no such crisis in regards to peer review. While not every review invitation can or even should be accepted, it is important to remember that when authors submit a paper, they are in essence asking for the time of their colleagues in the review process; and to that end, collegiality and generosity toward their colleagues would suggest that they likewise take on reviews of others' work. Additionally, at least most scholars would agree that peer reviewing inherently involves considerable self-development in regard to remaining abreast of one's field, honing one's own scientific acumen, and improving one's own writing. This is not to suggest that publishers, editors, and educational institutions cannot do more to recognize the contributions of peer reviewers. Again, we agree that journals should recognize reviewers either through public notification of their contributions or some other acknowledgement. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy's (RSAP's) “Top Reviewer” program has received considerable applause from those identified through the program to whom we send a personal, “hard copy” correspondence to maintain for their personal records and share with supervisors. Recognizing not only the act of reviewing but the quality in that review should assist educational institutions in evaluating the scholarship and service productivity of its faculty during formal performance reviews. Given recent contributions by other journal editors on what journals can do and how to fix the system,2,4,6,7 this paper's aim is to provide advice more technical and “functional” to stakeholders in the process. It focuses on the role of the reviewer regarding various aspects, or components of a manuscript, and in doing so, aims to concurrently aid the author on the types of things on which to focus or what to consider with each of those components. We likewise acknowledge the contribution of DiDomenico et al. (6) and Janke et al. (7) for pointing out generally the facets of peer review that are most helpful in editorial decisions and enhancing quality of manuscripts, such as including a global assessment or “big picture” analysis of the article, providing a critical analysis and specific feedback for improvement, speaking to the manuscript's utility in the literature, helping organize and sequencing the paper's content, and highlighting the strengths of the manuscript. It should be noted that while much of the advice and suggestions here are broad, they are given in the context specifically of what RSAP values in the process.
section of the structured abstract should convey its message with clarity. Authors should examine the journal's scope and examples of other abstracts in that same journal to ensure alignment. RSAP is a methods-driven journal. Thus, extreme brevity in the methods section of the abstract, such as “a survey was conducted” without further detail, does not meet with RSAP's ethos. A well-written abstract will convey the sample or source of the data, along with relevant validity and reliability assessments even in the face of word limits, which might vary by type of article submission category. Reviewers should comment on the balance, accuracy, clarity, and organization of the abstract. They might suggest changes in organization and a more salient point to be made in the abstract's background section. They should here (and elsewhere in the paper) make note of deficiencies in the quality of writing or lack of clarity, but need not make an attempt to wordsmith or point out each and every typographical error. However, the general lack of quality in writing should be pointed out as this could be indicative of the authors being unclear about their message and might predispose reviewers negatively toward the actual research itself. The introduction of the manuscript Many would, with considerable evidence, argue that this is the most challenging component of the manuscript to write. After all, the methods are what was done, and the results are what was found/observed, so those sections might be considered easier to write. While challenging, the introduction of the paper need not be so daunting. After all, authors are making a case for why the study was undertaken, which should have been discerned even prior to the study's execution. Some experienced authors make similar mistakes as do novice writers, wondering how they will ever fill enough space in the introduction section. Thus, the temptation is to meander about and include excessive material not germane to the research topic and to include common knowledge often found in tertiary sources, which can typically be summarized in a few sentences, saving space for a more thorough discussion of the case being made for conducting the study. For example, a manuscript on a study describing a new measure of health-related quality of life in patients with diabetes should not have 2–3 pages on the incidence of diabetes, the worldwide burden of diabetes, its comorbidities, and its ramifications for poor control by patients. These phenomena are already widely known and can be found in any diabetes or pharmacotherapy tertiary source. Rather than a first sentence such as “Diabetes continues to be a clinical and economic burden worldwide,” a more appropriate one would be “Creation of an accurate yet concise measurement of health-related quality of life for diabetes patients has proved to be challenging”. RSAP reviewers are asked to examine the Introduction section of the manuscript to ensure that the appropriate case is made for having conducted the study. They should look for the unique contribution that will be made by conducting the study. In doing so, they should look for what questions are being answered that have not yet been previously answered. They should be looking for the citations provided and be cognizant of potential papers left uncited by the authors. The crux here is not to just point out “missing” papers/citations, but rather, to identify papers upon which further research questions/knowledge sought should have been, and can be, built. These papers may be from other disciplines that provide a more appropriate theoretical framework, foundation, or gap analysis to justify the study being conducted. It is important to make sure that authors do not reinvent the wheel and overlook important contributions that have already been made. This can be problematic in any field, but is especially the case in social pharmacy and pharmacy practice where the tendency is to re-examine the same phenomena repeatedly and eschew what many have already or should have already accepted as basic tenets.8,9 There is no magic number of references. RSAP has accepted papers with as few as 8–10 references and as many as over 200. Reviewers are asked to not only
The abstract The abstract provides a short description of perspective and purpose of the paper, while divulging key results and offering a short description of interpretation and conclusions. The abstract should be concise and to the point. Perhaps there is not a more important 250–300 words in the entire manuscript. After all, this is what researchers see/read when conducting a literature search and the first thing read if scanning through the issue's table of contents to determine which articles are of particular interest. Abstracts are largely publicly available through various search engines and indexing services. Authors should bear in mind that the abstract is where the all-important first impression is made. While the cover letter is helpful for the editorial staff, it is the abstract that merits VERY CAREFUL attention due to its public availability and utility in reviewer and editorial decision-making. RSAP desk rejects approximately 60% of papers received. The abstract alone will not drive a reject (or accept) decision, but it certainly can put the editor on that path. Conversely, a compelling and accurate abstract will give the editor and reviewers the paper's sense of gravitas and positively predispose them to the remainder of the paper. RSAP also receives a large number of papers that do not adhere to the journal's stylistic considerations when crafting the abstract. Hardly anything could be more damaging from the start. Further, the abstract should be balanced to the extent possible in its various components. All too often, half of the abstract's words are in the Background or in the Results section, for example, coming at the expense of other sections. While brief, each 2
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
comment upon but also to help authors establish the appropriate foundation upon which to build their paper. Sometimes authors inherently know this foundation; however, they have been working with a topic for so long and in such detail, that they might take certain things for granted, and the reviewer should help point out when this is occurring. It is NOT the job of the reviewer to simply point out papers that are somewhat tangential to the research simply because the authors and/or papers are well-known and under the guise of the authors being remiss in not citing them. Equally, it is not the role of the reviewer to conduct a literature search for the authors. Reviewers would do well to help the authors with organization of certain concepts that not only provide clarity but help to make the paper compelling. In identifying gaps in the literature, it is important that reviewers (and authors) have an international perspective in mind, especially considering RSAP's audience. There is often the case where studies from countries nonnative to the authors have contributed considerably to the extant literature and to the understanding of a phenomenon yet are overlooked. Finally, reviewers should ensure that the literature contained in the introduction is current and not missing more recent publications.
measured and if the research was repeated, we would see the “same” results. Calibration and assessment of instrumentation are simply paramount. For qualitative papers, we expect that authors establish trustworthiness and thus consider and demonstrate credibility, transferability, and confirmability, and authenticity criteria as per Lincoln and Guba.11 While referencing in the methods section is not as commonplace as other manuscript sections, appropriate referencing lends credence to the methodological choices made as well as the reliability and validity of the method. To that end, reviewers are expected to make a recommendation commensurate with the research methods’ validity and reliability. Reviewer recommendations are for an editor to consider but must be interpreted in the context of all reviews received before rendering a final decision on a given manuscript. For reviewers, it is important that they provide the overwhelming majority of information to authors, rather than as comments to the editor. Reviewers provide comments, make a publication recommendation, and usually complete some sort of scale about various components of the paper. In regard to recommendations being commensurate with the validity and reliability of the research, reviewers must keep in mind that the paper can be amended; the design and methods cannot. They have been completed. Thus, if greater clarity is needed in the methods, and/or if there are other things that can improve the paper even while the research is solid and timely, then they should recommend pursuit of publication. If there is a fatal flaw in the research or if there are a number of significant errors that make the paper overly burdensome for reviewers, authors, and editors to adjudicate, then they should recommend rejection. All too often, reviewers are highly critical and point out fatal flaws only to recommend pursuit of publication, and vice versa (i.e., find things that are easily corrected only to recommend rejection of the manuscript). Some authors are tempted to place some of the results in the methods section. Pre-testing and other components of methods prior to the actual hypothesis-testing or hypothesis induction should be in the methods, and reviewers can assist with clarifying and/or making recommendations on such issues.
The methods section of the manuscript Many authors contend that this is the easiest section of the manuscript to write, for there would be no conjecture, seemingly no need to establish the literature, and so on. In those regards, there appears to be fewer alternatives in which to convey the information and thus fewer ways in which to err. However, this is also the component of a paper where reviewers are evaluating whether a methodologic flaw(s) will impact the validity of the conclusions drawn and thus jeopardize a positive publication decision. It is also important here to be mindful of the journal's style and the direction in which it leans. As such, audience is more important here than what authors might think. The journal's audience nor its editorial stylings affect the methods that were already conducted. However, these things will dictate the level of detail and sophistication with which one uses to communicate the methods employed and the extent to which the methods are encompassed in whole or broken down into individual components, such as sampling, design, data sources, and analysis plan. Authors are expected to include sufficient details, and thus, reviewers are asked to comment on all aspects of the methods and seek this information from authors in a revised paper should that be the editorial decision rendered. Reviewers should not recommend the ideal set of procedures if the investigators had an unlimited budget and/or time. Reviewers might consider referring authors to EQUATOR guidelines for scientific reporting, as deemed appropriate.10 Reviewers are to seek clarity so that the study is reproducible and determine that the methods are indeed appropriate and not tinged with biases that preclude the conclusions being made. Certain biases are inherent to certain types of designs. These can be included in a limitations section. However, the methods used by the authors and the execution might have introduced additional biases or other types of errors that rise above them merely being suggested as a limitation. RSAP reviewers should ensure and comment on validity and reliability, including trustworthiness and authenticity for qualitative research, where appropriate. RSAP does not have set quotas for survey response rates, number of persons participating in a qualitative study, or similar such rules a priori. Rather, authors must present a compelling case, with referencing as appropriate, for the rigor of their approach. Further, reviewers must be convinced that the data (whether they be survey responses, observational occurrences, patient records, qualitative statements, or some other transaction) are not biased in a way beyond those potential biases inherent to a particular design. Reviewers inform us of the critical confidence and trust we must have in the results being conveyed. As such, our reviewers must look for and comment on validity and reliability. Validity and reliability transcend type of method, level of response rate, or other such phenomena. They inspire confidence that what is purportedly being measured is actually being
The results section of the manuscript As with the Methods section, the Results section also features “wiggle-room”, which is good for the authors (and reviewers). This is a good time to mention the corroboration necessary between study objectives, methods, and results. Reviewers should and often will comment on the results of statistical tests conducted seemingly ad infinitum that were not part of the analysis plan. The analysis plan should be commensurate with the study objectives. Often, authors twist themselves into knots when simplicity and clarity work best. State the objectives/hypotheses, include a plan for how those will be tested (or induced), and provide the results in this section. Authors are encouraged to use appropriate tables and figures rather than lengthy textual reporting of data. Reviewers should very closely evaluate the results tables, as the prose component of the results can and likely will be relatively brief. Table titles should “stand on their own”. For example, a table title akin to “Regression results” or “Demographics” is insufficient. What was regressed over what? Demographic characteristics of whom? Authors should point out what is unique in tables rather than just reiterate what is in them. Additionally, the tables should be clear and orderly. Copyeditors and typesetters can only do so much to salvage a “messy” table with information overload. RSAP does not limit the number of tables or figures (except in Research Briefs), so authors should provide them rather than write excessive prose. Instead, the Results section should mention unique aspects or key components of the tables. Reviewers should discern carefully the appearance or even the possibility of various biases beyond those potentially inherent to the design, such as social desirability, recall, sample, and other biases. Reviewers should identify statements made in the Results section that 3
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
are not supported by the research, although RSAP pays mind to, and thus provides leeway, in the translation of the results in the grander scheme of things, or with reality, practicality, and implications in mind.
submitted, at least to RSAP, that might be considered, stellar, elite, or “top-notch”. There's another large proportion that will be desk rejected due to poor study execution, poor fit with the journal, lack of relevance to the audience, or some other reason. This means that there are approximately half of papers submitted that can easily go either way in regard to the ultimate publication decision. There is significant time borne by reviewers, editors, and the publisher in shepherding submissions through the process and preparing them for publication. Papers that might require additional, or multiple rounds of editing and/or do not adhere to stylistic considerations not only leave a bad impression, they also present the prospect of additional investment in resources that other papers might not; and thus the latter will be prioritized. Authors should assume responsibility for ensuring that the paper is grammatically sound in the English language, free from errors, and appropriately formatted. Authors should avoid the temptation during the study's design and in the writing of the manuscript to act as though their research will result in a grand paradigm shift for the entire profession. Research projects should answer 1–2 relatively confined questions; any more than that will likely result in either errors or poor execution (e.g., a survey that is overly burdensome for the prospective respondent). At the same time, some projects are large and comprehensive enough in scope that they SHOULD be divided into two or more papers, for attempting to cram everything into one paper will ultimately result in poor quality. The journal and its reviewers are increasingly taking observation of a paper's scope. It is often quite obvious when authors are taking too narrow a slice of a project and attempting to generate several papers, which divided are weaker than the sum of their parts in a stronger paper. Authors should consult peers within and outside of the project on potential publication strategies for their work. Transparency is key. Provide information in the cover letter or elsewhere in the submission process in regard to other recent or anticipated papers from the same work. Regarding transparency, it will likely be beneficial for the authors to be very upfront about the paper having been previously submitted elsewhere. While not an absolute, it has been helpful for authors attempting to gain acceptance of a paper in RSAP when they have disclosed that the paper was rejected by another journal, the primary reasons for its rejection, and what they have done to address concerns of reviewers from that journal and also make it a good fit for RSAP. These items can be contained in the cover letter. Authors should seek best fit. While authors should desire and aim to get their paper published in a reputable journal and perhaps one with an impact factor, simply identifying the journal with the highest CiteScore and submitting to it without regard to fit is usually a bad idea. The academic world, and particularly the world of social pharmacy/ practice, is a small one. If a paper has been rejected, particularly more than once, it might begin to get “weighted down” by its lack of success. Some of the same persons get asked to review the paper even by different journals, the data and findings become aged, and suddenly, authors are not able to find a home for their paper at all, after several attempts. So, while it is perfectly understandable to submit a manuscript elsewhere if it has been rejected, authors should try to find the journal with the best fit and maximize the likelihood of its acceptance to the first journal in which it was submitted. It is a big relief to have submitted a paper. It might be nearly as cathartic as receiving an accept decision from a journal. But do not let that impending catharsis tempt you to rush the submission. Take your time; look over the manuscript again (and again). Sometimes asking a colleague or mentor who has not participated in your project for feedback can identify issues that may have been missed. Many authors find themselves approaching a paper's final touches at the end of the workweek. They believe that they will have a “better weekend” by submitting the paper. That's okay if you have not rushed the final stages and ended up with sloppy mistakes (e.g., 3–4 different referencing styles within the same paper). Good mentoring advice for anyone within and even well outside of publishing is to avoid the temptation to
The discussion section of the manuscript Among the reviewer's top priority here is to ensure that the discussion is placed into appropriate context. It means placing the findings in light of the literature and the limitations of the study and highlighting the unique contribution made to the current body of knowledge. This will also include stating how findings corroborate others and why the current findings might be different than those from previous studies, rather than just pointing out the differences. Of course, authors should abide by various tenets that have long been espoused, including but not limited to: not simply-rehashing the results, not overstating or mischaracterizing the results, offering appropriate limitations to the study and methods (in a separate and distinct section, for RSAP), and proffering avenues for future research, or identifying the questions answered in the research as well as the new ones that were raised. If the research was theory-based, then the discussion should comment on what the study has added to the development of the theory. If the research is related to policy and practice, the discussion should provide how the findings can inform practice change. The author will surely provide some sort of context for the findings. However, this is more challenging than it appears, because authors have been immersed in the literature of the subject matter in question for a good period of time. This is helpful in a sense, but also can be inhibitory in others. Through all of their work, they may not see the proverbial forest for the trees or do not see even in their own work its potential contributions in a broader context, such as in related fields or content areas. This is among the reasons that at least 2–3 reviewers are sought, each of whom might approach the paper from somewhat different angles or perspectives. Reviewers should help authors strengthen the Discussion section by providing additional context, assisting with organization of potentially “scattered” thoughts by the authors, and identifying works/citations to serve as the basis for corroboration, disagreement, and/or other discussion. A good Discussion section might have as many citations as the introduction and should push the boundaries of what we theorize about a phenomenon. However, this is not the time for reviewers to insist upon citation of their own work or the work of a close friend/colleague, nor is it the time to speculate, and particularly not the time to ask authors to speculate. For example, “What if you had found x”?, “What do you think you would see if these 3-4 additional variables were added into the investigation?“, “What if the database you used had information on patients’ over-the-counter medication usage?“, and so on. The discussion should provoke thought, explain the need for further explication of studied phenomena, and provide context, but not impose hypotheticals or conjecture without sufficient literature to support any contentions made. In turn, the Conclusion section should not rehash the entire Results or Discussion sections. Instead, they should succinctly relate the key implications of the research, in concordance with the study's aims. It should not introduce new ideas (and thus, there is no need for references). This is the “take away” message, and if possible, should be contextualized for the international readership of RSAP. Some final thoughts/suggestions For authors While previously mentioned, it is worth re-affirming that authors should submit clean manuscripts that abide by the stylistic considerations and preferences of the journal. Authors must understand that there is fierce competition for space in most journals. It must further be understood that there is probably some small percentage of papers 4
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
“clear your desk” especially on weekends and especially when it means clearing your desk is transmitting the pile that was on your desk onto someone else's. It might not be viewed as a collegial move, and you might not like the response from the person on to whose desk you have transmitted your pile. In further regard to submission times/intervals, authors should understand that during significant holidays and during peak vacation times, it might take a bit longer than usual to receive a publication decision, as many potential reviewers might be taking some time off. Regardless of timing, authors would do well to demonstrate patience if they want legitimate feedback and careful consideration of the merits of their manuscript.
should not leave this section blank, but instead provide a summary of the article's strengths and limitations. These should directly relate to the recommendation by the reviewer and should take into account the mission and readership of RSAP. Just like you do not receive the “credit” when you review a good paper that was published, you also do not receive the blame when a good paper is not published or when a poor paper is published. Take the opportunity to mentor the authors, mentor the other reviewers, and even mentor the editors. While the process is one that is blinded and acknowledged for its lack of credit for each review individually, the academic world is a small one, and consistently good reviewers will have their opportunities and “day in the sun”, whether it is recognition through a “best reviewer” type of program, the opportunity to serve on a journal's panel or ad hoc committee of some sort, the opportunity to serve as a guest editor, an invitation to submit your own scholarly work, or even being named an associate editor or editor of a journal, should you want to pursue that path. This is in addition to the emergence of vehicles like Publons12 which allows reviewers to better track their activity and thus evince a growing sentiment that the work of reviewers be recognized.
For reviewers A fair amount has been said in this commentary, and much more has been said and could be said elsewhere. While repeated so frequently, it might almost sound trite or banal, yet it still bears mentioning again (and again) to likewise develop a good rapport with journals and with your blinded colleagues, to accept a reasonable number of peer review invitations, to treat peer reviewing as the scholarly endeavor that it is, to take responsibility for the growth of your science, discipline, and profession, and to be collegial. Recognition for conducting peer reviews and the entire system of peer review should be considered for tweaking and enhancement, but if everyone played well in the sandbox, the system may not need a drastic overhaul. Peer reviewing is not the same as journal club. The reviewer is determining the scientific merit of a paper and the study around which it was built; and the reviewer should do their level best to make sure that the paper contributes as much as it can to a growing body of knowledge. However, the paper will not, nor should be expected, to be perfect. The paper will still be imperfect even after yours and the other reviewers’ recommendations have been incorporated and even after it has been published. A review is not an extensive laundry list of complaints nor is it an opportunity for the peer reviewer to “strut their stuff” and demonstrate just how vastly superior their knowledge is. The reviewer is not to use derogatory language or levy attacks. The reviewer should communicate directly in a constructive and courteous manner and avoid inflammatory phrases such as “I had to perform mental gymnastics in attempting to understand this paper.” Rather, the reviewer can simply state that the paper is unclear and suggest what the authors might do to make it clearer rather than utilize such rhetoric. As noted by Hasegawa,4 a paper's review merits several reads. The first is to gather the general gist of the paper overall and make note of its quality and its merit for publication (after revisions), then a more careful read analyzing the specific components of the paper, then at least another read looking at the “gestalt” of the paper once again. Treat the opportunity to review with collegiality and with generosity. Treat the paper like you want others to treat your own paper. At the same time, remember that you are not doing yourself, the journal, the profession, nor the authors any favors by withholding criticisms or recommendations that would strengthen the paper. The “scores” RSAP assigns to reviews will definitely trend positively toward those that are more comprehensive, commenting on both the gestalt of the paper and its individual components. When providing feedback to authors and editors, it is important to include a detailed review that expresses the strengths of the manuscript, areas for clarification and improvement, and limitations. The comments to the author should include sufficient information so that they know what portion of the manuscript is being referred to. RSAP maintains “model reviews” on its website that can assist a reviewer in understanding what a comprehensive review should entail. Coincidently, your response to the editor should provide a detailed rationale for your recommendation regarding publication of the manuscript. Reviewers
Conclusion Peer review is fundamental to scientific advancement. Acquisition of wisdom through science inspires confidence in the knowledge gained. However, the process involves humans and human error at every stage, and thus it is still far from perfect. Authors can abide by certain tenets and recommendations to maximize their success. Reviewers can seize an opportunity to generously and collegially serve their peers with diligence, thoroughness, and empathy. The science, the discipline, and the profession will not achieve its paradigm with anything less. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054. References 1. Dean KL, Foray JM. The long goodbye: can academic citizenship sustain academic scholarship? J Manag Inq. 2018;27(2):164–168. 2. Malcom DL. It's time we fix the peer review system. Am J Pharmaceut Educ. 2018;82:5 Article. 3. Haines ST, Baker WL, DiDomenico RJ. Improving peer review: what journals can do. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(24):2086–2089. 4. Hasegawa GR. An editor's perspective on peer review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(24):2090–2094. 5. Wooten CA, Condis MA. Collegiality as a dirty word? Implementing Collegiality Policies in Institutions of Higher Education. vol. 2. Academic Labor: Research and Artistry; 2018 (3): Available at:. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/alra/vol2/iss1/3. 6. DiDomenico RJ, Baker WL, Haines ST. Improving peer review: what reviewers can do. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(24):2080–2084. 7. Janke KK, Bzowyckyj AS, Traynor AP. Editors' perspectives on manuscript quality and editorial decisions through peer review and reviewer development. Am J Pharmaceut Educ. 2017;81(4):73 Article. 8. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. fourth ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 9. Biglan A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. J Appl Psychol. 1973;57:195–203. 10. EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Outcomes Research. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/, Accessed date: 26 April 2019. 11. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project–Lincoln & Guba's Evaluative Criteria. Available at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684. html, Accessed date: 26 April 2019. 12. Publons. Available at: https://publons.com/about/home/, Accessed date: 26 April 2019.
5
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsap
Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research Shane P. Dessellea,∗, Aleda M. Chenb, Mohamed Aminc, Parisa Aslanid, Dalia Dawoude,f, Michael J. Millerg, Lotte Stig Norgaardh a
Touro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA Cedarville, University, Cedarville, OH, USA c Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon d University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia e National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK f Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt g Texas A&M Health Sciences Center, College Station, TX, USA h University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark b
ABSTRACT
In spite of concerns about the lack of recognition for its conduct, peer review remains the backbone of scientific evaluation and advancement of scientific knowledge. Given the challenges and evolution in the peer review system, collegiality among authors, reviewers, editors, and even consumers of content is more important than ever. While general guidance has been provided recently in the pharmacy literature, this commentary provides both philosophical underpinnings and specific mechanics for enhancing effectiveness of reviews and improving the quality of writing for authors concurrently, thus examining each major section in an original research contribution. Generosity, courtesy, diligence, thoroughness, and empathy are required of us all to advance the scientific paradigm of our discipline and profession.
Peer-reviewing: individual and system-level considerations Currently, peer-reviewed journal articles serve as a primary means of communication among scholars for advancing science and a profession/discipline and are often the “currency” by which we measure an individual's contributions for promotion, reward, and other achievements. Given the challenges for authors, reviewers, and even consumers of this mode of scholarly communication, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars wear the hats of author, reviewer, and reader, this commentary aims to provide some helpful suggestions to improve understanding and facilitate success among our colleagues in this process. We present to authors what reviewers are often looking for and, concurrently to reviewers, some things to consider when performing an effective review. The process of peer review has come under increasing scrutiny. The peer review “system” or the process of submission by authors, invitations to potential reviewers by editors, and submission of reviews and adjudication of publication decisions by editors, has been deemed as “unsustainable” due to the increasing service burden and lack of recognition of reviewers.1 We do not at all disagree that processes, recognition, feedback, and metrics to evaluate quality in peer reviewing
∗
can and should be improved.2 However, we are unsure as to whether this is a “system” fix. Who would fix the system, and under what privilege, obligation, or authority would they be doing so? Attempts to make wholesale changes or adopt wholly different models inherent to the scientific process have helped to breed deleterious actors such as predatory journals and conferences.3 Nonetheless, Malcom provided excellent recommendations for improving peer review, and we share his opinion that changes will concomitantly assist all stakeholders in the process, including publishers, reviewers, authors, and even readers. These changes include providing more structured feedback mechanisms for reviewers, mitigating bias, and recognizing and educating everyone involved on the valuable contributions they make toward the process. Those valuable contributions are part of a collegial undertaking vital to all of us in the academy to advance science without undue burden on a select few. Hasegawa acknowledges the difficulty in acquiring 2–3 quality reviews for a paper, i.e., often having to invite 10–12 reviewers, many of whom might not deliver what is promised or do so in a relatively slipshod fashion.4 While peer reviewing can be a relatively thankless job, it remains part of the larger collegial endeavor with which we invest and rely. Some have pointed to a paucity, if not crisis, in collegiality growing more moribund with the passage of time.5 If everyone took a
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.P. Desselle).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054 Received 29 April 2019; Accepted 29 April 2019 1551-7411/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Shane P. Desselle, et al., Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
collegial and generous approach to advancing the scientific process, their profession, their discipline, and their colleagues, there would likely be no such crisis in regards to peer review. While not every review invitation can or even should be accepted, it is important to remember that when authors submit a paper, they are in essence asking for the time of their colleagues in the review process; and to that end, collegiality and generosity toward their colleagues would suggest that they likewise take on reviews of others' work. Additionally, at least most scholars would agree that peer reviewing inherently involves considerable self-development in regard to remaining abreast of one's field, honing one's own scientific acumen, and improving one's own writing. This is not to suggest that publishers, editors, and educational institutions cannot do more to recognize the contributions of peer reviewers. Again, we agree that journals should recognize reviewers either through public notification of their contributions or some other acknowledgement. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy's (RSAP's) “Top Reviewer” program has received considerable applause from those identified through the program to whom we send a personal, “hard copy” correspondence to maintain for their personal records and share with supervisors. Recognizing not only the act of reviewing but the quality in that review should assist educational institutions in evaluating the scholarship and service productivity of its faculty during formal performance reviews. Given recent contributions by other journal editors on what journals can do and how to fix the system,2,4,6,7 this paper's aim is to provide advice more technical and “functional” to stakeholders in the process. It focuses on the role of the reviewer regarding various aspects, or components of a manuscript, and in doing so, aims to concurrently aid the author on the types of things on which to focus or what to consider with each of those components. We likewise acknowledge the contribution of DiDomenico et al. (6) and Janke et al. (7) for pointing out generally the facets of peer review that are most helpful in editorial decisions and enhancing quality of manuscripts, such as including a global assessment or “big picture” analysis of the article, providing a critical analysis and specific feedback for improvement, speaking to the manuscript's utility in the literature, helping organize and sequencing the paper's content, and highlighting the strengths of the manuscript. It should be noted that while much of the advice and suggestions here are broad, they are given in the context specifically of what RSAP values in the process.
section of the structured abstract should convey its message with clarity. Authors should examine the journal's scope and examples of other abstracts in that same journal to ensure alignment. RSAP is a methods-driven journal. Thus, extreme brevity in the methods section of the abstract, such as “a survey was conducted” without further detail, does not meet with RSAP's ethos. A well-written abstract will convey the sample or source of the data, along with relevant validity and reliability assessments even in the face of word limits, which might vary by type of article submission category. Reviewers should comment on the balance, accuracy, clarity, and organization of the abstract. They might suggest changes in organization and a more salient point to be made in the abstract's background section. They should here (and elsewhere in the paper) make note of deficiencies in the quality of writing or lack of clarity, but need not make an attempt to wordsmith or point out each and every typographical error. However, the general lack of quality in writing should be pointed out as this could be indicative of the authors being unclear about their message and might predispose reviewers negatively toward the actual research itself. The introduction of the manuscript Many would, with considerable evidence, argue that this is the most challenging component of the manuscript to write. After all, the methods are what was done, and the results are what was found/observed, so those sections might be considered easier to write. While challenging, the introduction of the paper need not be so daunting. After all, authors are making a case for why the study was undertaken, which should have been discerned even prior to the study's execution. Some experienced authors make similar mistakes as do novice writers, wondering how they will ever fill enough space in the introduction section. Thus, the temptation is to meander about and include excessive material not germane to the research topic and to include common knowledge often found in tertiary sources, which can typically be summarized in a few sentences, saving space for a more thorough discussion of the case being made for conducting the study. For example, a manuscript on a study describing a new measure of health-related quality of life in patients with diabetes should not have 2–3 pages on the incidence of diabetes, the worldwide burden of diabetes, its comorbidities, and its ramifications for poor control by patients. These phenomena are already widely known and can be found in any diabetes or pharmacotherapy tertiary source. Rather than a first sentence such as “Diabetes continues to be a clinical and economic burden worldwide,” a more appropriate one would be “Creation of an accurate yet concise measurement of health-related quality of life for diabetes patients has proved to be challenging”. RSAP reviewers are asked to examine the Introduction section of the manuscript to ensure that the appropriate case is made for having conducted the study. They should look for the unique contribution that will be made by conducting the study. In doing so, they should look for what questions are being answered that have not yet been previously answered. They should be looking for the citations provided and be cognizant of potential papers left uncited by the authors. The crux here is not to just point out “missing” papers/citations, but rather, to identify papers upon which further research questions/knowledge sought should have been, and can be, built. These papers may be from other disciplines that provide a more appropriate theoretical framework, foundation, or gap analysis to justify the study being conducted. It is important to make sure that authors do not reinvent the wheel and overlook important contributions that have already been made. This can be problematic in any field, but is especially the case in social pharmacy and pharmacy practice where the tendency is to re-examine the same phenomena repeatedly and eschew what many have already or should have already accepted as basic tenets.8,9 There is no magic number of references. RSAP has accepted papers with as few as 8–10 references and as many as over 200. Reviewers are asked to not only
The abstract The abstract provides a short description of perspective and purpose of the paper, while divulging key results and offering a short description of interpretation and conclusions. The abstract should be concise and to the point. Perhaps there is not a more important 250–300 words in the entire manuscript. After all, this is what researchers see/read when conducting a literature search and the first thing read if scanning through the issue's table of contents to determine which articles are of particular interest. Abstracts are largely publicly available through various search engines and indexing services. Authors should bear in mind that the abstract is where the all-important first impression is made. While the cover letter is helpful for the editorial staff, it is the abstract that merits VERY CAREFUL attention due to its public availability and utility in reviewer and editorial decision-making. RSAP desk rejects approximately 60% of papers received. The abstract alone will not drive a reject (or accept) decision, but it certainly can put the editor on that path. Conversely, a compelling and accurate abstract will give the editor and reviewers the paper's sense of gravitas and positively predispose them to the remainder of the paper. RSAP also receives a large number of papers that do not adhere to the journal's stylistic considerations when crafting the abstract. Hardly anything could be more damaging from the start. Further, the abstract should be balanced to the extent possible in its various components. All too often, half of the abstract's words are in the Background or in the Results section, for example, coming at the expense of other sections. While brief, each 2
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
comment upon but also to help authors establish the appropriate foundation upon which to build their paper. Sometimes authors inherently know this foundation; however, they have been working with a topic for so long and in such detail, that they might take certain things for granted, and the reviewer should help point out when this is occurring. It is NOT the job of the reviewer to simply point out papers that are somewhat tangential to the research simply because the authors and/or papers are well-known and under the guise of the authors being remiss in not citing them. Equally, it is not the role of the reviewer to conduct a literature search for the authors. Reviewers would do well to help the authors with organization of certain concepts that not only provide clarity but help to make the paper compelling. In identifying gaps in the literature, it is important that reviewers (and authors) have an international perspective in mind, especially considering RSAP's audience. There is often the case where studies from countries nonnative to the authors have contributed considerably to the extant literature and to the understanding of a phenomenon yet are overlooked. Finally, reviewers should ensure that the literature contained in the introduction is current and not missing more recent publications.
measured and if the research was repeated, we would see the “same” results. Calibration and assessment of instrumentation are simply paramount. For qualitative papers, we expect that authors establish trustworthiness and thus consider and demonstrate credibility, transferability, and confirmability, and authenticity criteria as per Lincoln and Guba.11 While referencing in the methods section is not as commonplace as other manuscript sections, appropriate referencing lends credence to the methodological choices made as well as the reliability and validity of the method. To that end, reviewers are expected to make a recommendation commensurate with the research methods’ validity and reliability. Reviewer recommendations are for an editor to consider but must be interpreted in the context of all reviews received before rendering a final decision on a given manuscript. For reviewers, it is important that they provide the overwhelming majority of information to authors, rather than as comments to the editor. Reviewers provide comments, make a publication recommendation, and usually complete some sort of scale about various components of the paper. In regard to recommendations being commensurate with the validity and reliability of the research, reviewers must keep in mind that the paper can be amended; the design and methods cannot. They have been completed. Thus, if greater clarity is needed in the methods, and/or if there are other things that can improve the paper even while the research is solid and timely, then they should recommend pursuit of publication. If there is a fatal flaw in the research or if there are a number of significant errors that make the paper overly burdensome for reviewers, authors, and editors to adjudicate, then they should recommend rejection. All too often, reviewers are highly critical and point out fatal flaws only to recommend pursuit of publication, and vice versa (i.e., find things that are easily corrected only to recommend rejection of the manuscript). Some authors are tempted to place some of the results in the methods section. Pre-testing and other components of methods prior to the actual hypothesis-testing or hypothesis induction should be in the methods, and reviewers can assist with clarifying and/or making recommendations on such issues.
The methods section of the manuscript Many authors contend that this is the easiest section of the manuscript to write, for there would be no conjecture, seemingly no need to establish the literature, and so on. In those regards, there appears to be fewer alternatives in which to convey the information and thus fewer ways in which to err. However, this is also the component of a paper where reviewers are evaluating whether a methodologic flaw(s) will impact the validity of the conclusions drawn and thus jeopardize a positive publication decision. It is also important here to be mindful of the journal's style and the direction in which it leans. As such, audience is more important here than what authors might think. The journal's audience nor its editorial stylings affect the methods that were already conducted. However, these things will dictate the level of detail and sophistication with which one uses to communicate the methods employed and the extent to which the methods are encompassed in whole or broken down into individual components, such as sampling, design, data sources, and analysis plan. Authors are expected to include sufficient details, and thus, reviewers are asked to comment on all aspects of the methods and seek this information from authors in a revised paper should that be the editorial decision rendered. Reviewers should not recommend the ideal set of procedures if the investigators had an unlimited budget and/or time. Reviewers might consider referring authors to EQUATOR guidelines for scientific reporting, as deemed appropriate.10 Reviewers are to seek clarity so that the study is reproducible and determine that the methods are indeed appropriate and not tinged with biases that preclude the conclusions being made. Certain biases are inherent to certain types of designs. These can be included in a limitations section. However, the methods used by the authors and the execution might have introduced additional biases or other types of errors that rise above them merely being suggested as a limitation. RSAP reviewers should ensure and comment on validity and reliability, including trustworthiness and authenticity for qualitative research, where appropriate. RSAP does not have set quotas for survey response rates, number of persons participating in a qualitative study, or similar such rules a priori. Rather, authors must present a compelling case, with referencing as appropriate, for the rigor of their approach. Further, reviewers must be convinced that the data (whether they be survey responses, observational occurrences, patient records, qualitative statements, or some other transaction) are not biased in a way beyond those potential biases inherent to a particular design. Reviewers inform us of the critical confidence and trust we must have in the results being conveyed. As such, our reviewers must look for and comment on validity and reliability. Validity and reliability transcend type of method, level of response rate, or other such phenomena. They inspire confidence that what is purportedly being measured is actually being
The results section of the manuscript As with the Methods section, the Results section also features “wiggle-room”, which is good for the authors (and reviewers). This is a good time to mention the corroboration necessary between study objectives, methods, and results. Reviewers should and often will comment on the results of statistical tests conducted seemingly ad infinitum that were not part of the analysis plan. The analysis plan should be commensurate with the study objectives. Often, authors twist themselves into knots when simplicity and clarity work best. State the objectives/hypotheses, include a plan for how those will be tested (or induced), and provide the results in this section. Authors are encouraged to use appropriate tables and figures rather than lengthy textual reporting of data. Reviewers should very closely evaluate the results tables, as the prose component of the results can and likely will be relatively brief. Table titles should “stand on their own”. For example, a table title akin to “Regression results” or “Demographics” is insufficient. What was regressed over what? Demographic characteristics of whom? Authors should point out what is unique in tables rather than just reiterate what is in them. Additionally, the tables should be clear and orderly. Copyeditors and typesetters can only do so much to salvage a “messy” table with information overload. RSAP does not limit the number of tables or figures (except in Research Briefs), so authors should provide them rather than write excessive prose. Instead, the Results section should mention unique aspects or key components of the tables. Reviewers should discern carefully the appearance or even the possibility of various biases beyond those potentially inherent to the design, such as social desirability, recall, sample, and other biases. Reviewers should identify statements made in the Results section that 3
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
are not supported by the research, although RSAP pays mind to, and thus provides leeway, in the translation of the results in the grander scheme of things, or with reality, practicality, and implications in mind.
submitted, at least to RSAP, that might be considered, stellar, elite, or “top-notch”. There's another large proportion that will be desk rejected due to poor study execution, poor fit with the journal, lack of relevance to the audience, or some other reason. This means that there are approximately half of papers submitted that can easily go either way in regard to the ultimate publication decision. There is significant time borne by reviewers, editors, and the publisher in shepherding submissions through the process and preparing them for publication. Papers that might require additional, or multiple rounds of editing and/or do not adhere to stylistic considerations not only leave a bad impression, they also present the prospect of additional investment in resources that other papers might not; and thus the latter will be prioritized. Authors should assume responsibility for ensuring that the paper is grammatically sound in the English language, free from errors, and appropriately formatted. Authors should avoid the temptation during the study's design and in the writing of the manuscript to act as though their research will result in a grand paradigm shift for the entire profession. Research projects should answer 1–2 relatively confined questions; any more than that will likely result in either errors or poor execution (e.g., a survey that is overly burdensome for the prospective respondent). At the same time, some projects are large and comprehensive enough in scope that they SHOULD be divided into two or more papers, for attempting to cram everything into one paper will ultimately result in poor quality. The journal and its reviewers are increasingly taking observation of a paper's scope. It is often quite obvious when authors are taking too narrow a slice of a project and attempting to generate several papers, which divided are weaker than the sum of their parts in a stronger paper. Authors should consult peers within and outside of the project on potential publication strategies for their work. Transparency is key. Provide information in the cover letter or elsewhere in the submission process in regard to other recent or anticipated papers from the same work. Regarding transparency, it will likely be beneficial for the authors to be very upfront about the paper having been previously submitted elsewhere. While not an absolute, it has been helpful for authors attempting to gain acceptance of a paper in RSAP when they have disclosed that the paper was rejected by another journal, the primary reasons for its rejection, and what they have done to address concerns of reviewers from that journal and also make it a good fit for RSAP. These items can be contained in the cover letter. Authors should seek best fit. While authors should desire and aim to get their paper published in a reputable journal and perhaps one with an impact factor, simply identifying the journal with the highest CiteScore and submitting to it without regard to fit is usually a bad idea. The academic world, and particularly the world of social pharmacy/ practice, is a small one. If a paper has been rejected, particularly more than once, it might begin to get “weighted down” by its lack of success. Some of the same persons get asked to review the paper even by different journals, the data and findings become aged, and suddenly, authors are not able to find a home for their paper at all, after several attempts. So, while it is perfectly understandable to submit a manuscript elsewhere if it has been rejected, authors should try to find the journal with the best fit and maximize the likelihood of its acceptance to the first journal in which it was submitted. It is a big relief to have submitted a paper. It might be nearly as cathartic as receiving an accept decision from a journal. But do not let that impending catharsis tempt you to rush the submission. Take your time; look over the manuscript again (and again). Sometimes asking a colleague or mentor who has not participated in your project for feedback can identify issues that may have been missed. Many authors find themselves approaching a paper's final touches at the end of the workweek. They believe that they will have a “better weekend” by submitting the paper. That's okay if you have not rushed the final stages and ended up with sloppy mistakes (e.g., 3–4 different referencing styles within the same paper). Good mentoring advice for anyone within and even well outside of publishing is to avoid the temptation to
The discussion section of the manuscript Among the reviewer's top priority here is to ensure that the discussion is placed into appropriate context. It means placing the findings in light of the literature and the limitations of the study and highlighting the unique contribution made to the current body of knowledge. This will also include stating how findings corroborate others and why the current findings might be different than those from previous studies, rather than just pointing out the differences. Of course, authors should abide by various tenets that have long been espoused, including but not limited to: not simply-rehashing the results, not overstating or mischaracterizing the results, offering appropriate limitations to the study and methods (in a separate and distinct section, for RSAP), and proffering avenues for future research, or identifying the questions answered in the research as well as the new ones that were raised. If the research was theory-based, then the discussion should comment on what the study has added to the development of the theory. If the research is related to policy and practice, the discussion should provide how the findings can inform practice change. The author will surely provide some sort of context for the findings. However, this is more challenging than it appears, because authors have been immersed in the literature of the subject matter in question for a good period of time. This is helpful in a sense, but also can be inhibitory in others. Through all of their work, they may not see the proverbial forest for the trees or do not see even in their own work its potential contributions in a broader context, such as in related fields or content areas. This is among the reasons that at least 2–3 reviewers are sought, each of whom might approach the paper from somewhat different angles or perspectives. Reviewers should help authors strengthen the Discussion section by providing additional context, assisting with organization of potentially “scattered” thoughts by the authors, and identifying works/citations to serve as the basis for corroboration, disagreement, and/or other discussion. A good Discussion section might have as many citations as the introduction and should push the boundaries of what we theorize about a phenomenon. However, this is not the time for reviewers to insist upon citation of their own work or the work of a close friend/colleague, nor is it the time to speculate, and particularly not the time to ask authors to speculate. For example, “What if you had found x”?, “What do you think you would see if these 3-4 additional variables were added into the investigation?“, “What if the database you used had information on patients’ over-the-counter medication usage?“, and so on. The discussion should provoke thought, explain the need for further explication of studied phenomena, and provide context, but not impose hypotheticals or conjecture without sufficient literature to support any contentions made. In turn, the Conclusion section should not rehash the entire Results or Discussion sections. Instead, they should succinctly relate the key implications of the research, in concordance with the study's aims. It should not introduce new ideas (and thus, there is no need for references). This is the “take away” message, and if possible, should be contextualized for the international readership of RSAP. Some final thoughts/suggestions For authors While previously mentioned, it is worth re-affirming that authors should submit clean manuscripts that abide by the stylistic considerations and preferences of the journal. Authors must understand that there is fierce competition for space in most journals. It must further be understood that there is probably some small percentage of papers 4
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S.P. Desselle, et al.
“clear your desk” especially on weekends and especially when it means clearing your desk is transmitting the pile that was on your desk onto someone else's. It might not be viewed as a collegial move, and you might not like the response from the person on to whose desk you have transmitted your pile. In further regard to submission times/intervals, authors should understand that during significant holidays and during peak vacation times, it might take a bit longer than usual to receive a publication decision, as many potential reviewers might be taking some time off. Regardless of timing, authors would do well to demonstrate patience if they want legitimate feedback and careful consideration of the merits of their manuscript.
should not leave this section blank, but instead provide a summary of the article's strengths and limitations. These should directly relate to the recommendation by the reviewer and should take into account the mission and readership of RSAP. Just like you do not receive the “credit” when you review a good paper that was published, you also do not receive the blame when a good paper is not published or when a poor paper is published. Take the opportunity to mentor the authors, mentor the other reviewers, and even mentor the editors. While the process is one that is blinded and acknowledged for its lack of credit for each review individually, the academic world is a small one, and consistently good reviewers will have their opportunities and “day in the sun”, whether it is recognition through a “best reviewer” type of program, the opportunity to serve on a journal's panel or ad hoc committee of some sort, the opportunity to serve as a guest editor, an invitation to submit your own scholarly work, or even being named an associate editor or editor of a journal, should you want to pursue that path. This is in addition to the emergence of vehicles like Publons12 which allows reviewers to better track their activity and thus evince a growing sentiment that the work of reviewers be recognized.
For reviewers A fair amount has been said in this commentary, and much more has been said and could be said elsewhere. While repeated so frequently, it might almost sound trite or banal, yet it still bears mentioning again (and again) to likewise develop a good rapport with journals and with your blinded colleagues, to accept a reasonable number of peer review invitations, to treat peer reviewing as the scholarly endeavor that it is, to take responsibility for the growth of your science, discipline, and profession, and to be collegial. Recognition for conducting peer reviews and the entire system of peer review should be considered for tweaking and enhancement, but if everyone played well in the sandbox, the system may not need a drastic overhaul. Peer reviewing is not the same as journal club. The reviewer is determining the scientific merit of a paper and the study around which it was built; and the reviewer should do their level best to make sure that the paper contributes as much as it can to a growing body of knowledge. However, the paper will not, nor should be expected, to be perfect. The paper will still be imperfect even after yours and the other reviewers’ recommendations have been incorporated and even after it has been published. A review is not an extensive laundry list of complaints nor is it an opportunity for the peer reviewer to “strut their stuff” and demonstrate just how vastly superior their knowledge is. The reviewer is not to use derogatory language or levy attacks. The reviewer should communicate directly in a constructive and courteous manner and avoid inflammatory phrases such as “I had to perform mental gymnastics in attempting to understand this paper.” Rather, the reviewer can simply state that the paper is unclear and suggest what the authors might do to make it clearer rather than utilize such rhetoric. As noted by Hasegawa,4 a paper's review merits several reads. The first is to gather the general gist of the paper overall and make note of its quality and its merit for publication (after revisions), then a more careful read analyzing the specific components of the paper, then at least another read looking at the “gestalt” of the paper once again. Treat the opportunity to review with collegiality and with generosity. Treat the paper like you want others to treat your own paper. At the same time, remember that you are not doing yourself, the journal, the profession, nor the authors any favors by withholding criticisms or recommendations that would strengthen the paper. The “scores” RSAP assigns to reviews will definitely trend positively toward those that are more comprehensive, commenting on both the gestalt of the paper and its individual components. When providing feedback to authors and editors, it is important to include a detailed review that expresses the strengths of the manuscript, areas for clarification and improvement, and limitations. The comments to the author should include sufficient information so that they know what portion of the manuscript is being referred to. RSAP maintains “model reviews” on its website that can assist a reviewer in understanding what a comprehensive review should entail. Coincidently, your response to the editor should provide a detailed rationale for your recommendation regarding publication of the manuscript. Reviewers
Conclusion Peer review is fundamental to scientific advancement. Acquisition of wisdom through science inspires confidence in the knowledge gained. However, the process involves humans and human error at every stage, and thus it is still far from perfect. Authors can abide by certain tenets and recommendations to maximize their success. Reviewers can seize an opportunity to generously and collegially serve their peers with diligence, thoroughness, and empathy. The science, the discipline, and the profession will not achieve its paradigm with anything less. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054. References 1. Dean KL, Foray JM. The long goodbye: can academic citizenship sustain academic scholarship? J Manag Inq. 2018;27(2):164–168. 2. Malcom DL. It's time we fix the peer review system. Am J Pharmaceut Educ. 2018;82:5 Article. 3. Haines ST, Baker WL, DiDomenico RJ. Improving peer review: what journals can do. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(24):2086–2089. 4. Hasegawa GR. An editor's perspective on peer review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(24):2090–2094. 5. Wooten CA, Condis MA. Collegiality as a dirty word? Implementing Collegiality Policies in Institutions of Higher Education. vol. 2. Academic Labor: Research and Artistry; 2018 (3): Available at:. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/alra/vol2/iss1/3. 6. DiDomenico RJ, Baker WL, Haines ST. Improving peer review: what reviewers can do. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(24):2080–2084. 7. Janke KK, Bzowyckyj AS, Traynor AP. Editors' perspectives on manuscript quality and editorial decisions through peer review and reviewer development. Am J Pharmaceut Educ. 2017;81(4):73 Article. 8. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. fourth ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 9. Biglan A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. J Appl Psychol. 1973;57:195–203. 10. EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Outcomes Research. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/, Accessed date: 26 April 2019. 11. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project–Lincoln & Guba's Evaluative Criteria. Available at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684. html, Accessed date: 26 April 2019. 12. Publons. Available at: https://publons.com/about/home/, Accessed date: 26 April 2019.
5