Hello

The review must be professional .

The review or critic should be objective, without any judgment

Thnanks

In the case of a conference which has an open microphone for questions, comments, an individual going up to the microphone may have many reasons to be there:

1.  He or she is genuinely interested in your work and wants to ask you a question to further clarify a point you made in the course of your presentation which he or she did not hear, may have misheard, may want to further clarify for you, may want to further clarify for himself or herself.  Oftentimes it is difficult to detect from the tone of voice, etc., of the individual at the microphone.

2.  Others at an open mic, may have a different point of view on the data (aspects of data) that you presented at the conference, he or she may have misinterpreted what you said entirely and the individual is at fault, you may have been able to better clarify the point you made (but it will be difficult to see or appreciate that point as you are in the speaker area with a lot of pressure on you to respond respectfully to that individual.

3.  The individual at the open mic may be interested in demonstrating to the rest of the audience how smart that individual believes himself or herself to be.

4.  The individual at the open mic may be just tired from sitting in the audience and want to get up and stretch his or her legs and talk.

It is often very difficult to understand operative motivations in an individual at an open mic responding in some way to a presentation.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Most of the important new work is produced by groups of researchers where the constructive feed back is routine. Credit is also shared which seems to be the main reason why ideas are shared and progress occurs in groups.

Regarding the peer-review of authored manuscripts, one must understand that the quality of a review starts with the selection of the reviewer for the manuscript submitted for consideration of publication by the journal.  

In many journals, the editors select the peer-reviewers hopefully by a matching of interests of the author and the reviewer. 

Some journals allow the author to submit a list of potential reviewers from which the editors may select from.

Regarding the peer-reviewer selected, factors impact the review include the following:

The time the reviewer has to analyze the manuscript.

The reviewer’s interest in the manuscript.

The reviewer’s area(s) of expertise, e.g., is the reviewer a medical writer, a methodologist, a researcher, or otherwise.

The reviewer as writer will be interested in making certain at minimum that (1) the Title is clear to the potential reader; (2) that what is represented in the title is found in the Abstract, the and Introduction, etc.

The reviewer as methodologist (1) may or may not agree with the methodology that was select in a research study, and (2) may or may not be confused by the methodology as presented.  In this latter category, it may be difficult for the reviewer to convey what he or she would consider a better methodology, and may be more or less willing to share his or her ideas with the author.

The reviewer as statistician (1) will make comments, however, (2) since he or she does not have the actual data, the statistician cannot rerun data, (3) but may be able to give estimates of reliability of the statistics the author relied upon and may or may not have been successful in using correctly.

The reviewer as interpreter of results is dependent on a well-written manuscript to start off with.

The young author may need the insight of each of the above reviewers, but his or her manuscript may be read by only 1, 2, if lucky 3 reviewers whose insight may not be uniform.  If the author/researcher works with a group of researchers, as Jerry Decker has noted, then the routine giving of constructive feedback and sharing of credit is part of the collaborative research process.  However, important work can also be done on a smaller level of the N=1 researcher, and my comments have been more on the N=1 investigator/author.

If the young investigator/author is lucky enough to have enough mentors and colleagues willing to read initial drafts of his or her manuscript, then the manuscript should be in better conceptual form before its first submission. 

Again, the motivations of the reviewer in any of the above categories will not be directly accessible to the author unless the reviewer elects to share his or her perspective on how he or she reviews manuscripts in the first place.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Authors Section vs. Acknowledgements Section of a Peer-Reviewed Journal Paper

1.  A key question of scientific peer review is the recognition of those who  participated in the design, development, and execution of the study vs. those who participated in the writing of the manuscript.  The question is:  where does this recognition occur in the final written manuscript itself that is sent to the peer-reviewed journal of consideration of publication? 

2.  One of the terms that often appears in the guidance given to authors by the journal publishers/editors is the term “substantial” as in “substantial contribution" to an article”.  Oftentimes, neither “substantial” nor “contribution” are defined clearly, even though so much depends on how one defines the terms.

3.  Presumably, in the case of the overall conceptualization of each element of the design and execution of the research study, let us assume there are nine components: (1) the design of the research study, (2) the development of the study objective, (3) the study methodology, (4) the selection of the study population, (5) the selection of study methods , (6) the execution of the data collection phases of the study, (7) the analysis of the study results, (8) the interpretation of the study results, and (9) the drawing of the conclusions from the interpreted study results are all “significant to the article” because otherwise the study itself would have never come into existence. 

4.  But what if the designers, developers and executors of the nine key parts of the study did not participate in the writing of the manuscript, should their recognition belong in the Authors section of the paper or the Acknowledgements section of the paper? 

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Thanks for your intriguing contribution, Denis. On the issue of claim of authorship and the 'substantial contribution' conundrum, what's your advice to young researchers like me?

SAGE offers authors the following advice on Authorship and Acknowledgements::

"2.2 Authorship

All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.

2.3 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support."

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

"

Sage at another journal site notes the following:

"Papers should only be submitted for consideration once consent is given by all contributing authors. Those submitting papers should carefully check that all those whose work contributed to the paper are acknowledged as contributing authors.

 The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship. This is all those who:

1.Made a substantial contribution to the concept and design, acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data,

2.Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content,

3.Approved the version to be published.

 Authors should meet the conditions of all of the points above. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

 When a large, multicentre group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship.

 Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship, although all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section."

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Hindolo,

An ever more detailed example of what might be termed “a suggested code of ethics of authorship andacknowledgements” was developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).  I have listed elements of their recommendations below.  A fuller text can be found at //www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.

“2. Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

•Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

•Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

•Final approval of the version to be published; AND

•Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged—see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete conflict-of-interest disclosure forms.

 Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

 3. Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients", "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.”

Dennis

Dennis Mazur 

Thanks Dennis.