An editor’s view
interview with John Fourkas
Abstract
What are the editors of scientific journals looking for when reviewing a paper submitted for publication? What criteria are they using to evaluate a paper submitted for publication? John Fourkas, Senior Editor of the ACS Journal of Physical Chemistry, describes in his interview the process of peer review, the reasons for rejection, and how authors could increase their chances of getting their papers accepted for publication. He also discusses common types of unethical behavior, such as plagiarism and falsification of data, and how the journals are trying to detect them before a paper enters the production process.
John Fourkas is the Millard Alexander Professor of Chemistry at the University of Maryland, College Park, and holds appointments in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the Institute for Physical Science and Technology. He earned a BS and MS in Chemistry from the California Institute of Technology and a PhD in Chemistry from Stanford University. He was an NSF postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas at Austin and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been a senior editor of The Journal of Physical Chemistry since 2002.
Svetla Baykoucheva: What do the editors look for when they first see a manuscript submitted for publication? What would you check first for a new paper?
John Fourkas: Typically, the first thing that an editor would check is whether the subject matter of the paper is appropriate for the journal. The topic should be within the discipline(s) covered by the journal and may need to fit other criteria as well (such as currency and impact). An editor will also check whether the manuscript is suitable to send out for review. Some of the criteria that might be checked include being written in clear English, having high-quality figures, and having an adequate number of references.
SB: How are reviewers selected and vetted for each manuscript?
JF: The selection process for reviewers varies from journal to journal and even editor to editor. I usually select one or more reviewers suggested by the authors and one or more of my own. It is generally helpful if the authors suggest at least five reviewers and list brief qualifications for each. Other reviewers may be chosen based on the editor’s knowledge of the subject area, references in the paper, and/or literature/database searches.
Sometimes, after a manuscript has received unfavorable reviews, I receive a complaint from the corresponding author that I have chosen reviewers who are not knowledgeable in the subject area. In my experience, the vast majority of such negative reviews actually come from reviewers who were suggested by the authors. It therefore is generally not helpful to say this to an editor unless the reviewer has used an unprofessional approach in the review. My experience as an editor (and an author) is that if the reviewer has misunderstood a paper, that is generally a sign that the paper was not written in as clear a manner as might have been imagined by the authors.
SB: What are the most common types of unethical behavior? What are the consequences for authors if they have engaged in such activity?
JF: The answer to this question may depend on the scientific discipline in question, but the type of unethical behavior that most often comes to my attention is plagiarism. For instance, in manuscripts written by authors who are not native speakers of English, I sometimes find sentences in abstracts, introductions, and conclusions that are clearly in a different style from the majority of the manuscript. A Google search often reveals that these sentences were taken from other papers in the literature.
For a number of years, I taught a course on professional skills for new graduate students in chemistry, and one topic that we covered was plagiarism. I gave an assignment in which students were asked to find papers in a hot area of chemistry that was at least five years old. The goal was to try to find instances of plagiarism by looking for such sentences. I asked them not to spend more than 30 minutes on the assignment, and more than 80% were successful in finding examples.
In my experience, this type of plagiarism often arises when students who are not confident of their English abilities are also not well-versed in publication ethics. It is important that lead investigators teach their students about publication ethics and read all manuscripts carefully before submission. This type of infraction may cause a paper to be rejected, and, depending on the severity, it may also result in some sort of sanctions for the authors.
I have also seen many cases in which authors reuse words and/or figures from previous publications. Many authors are not aware that such self-plagiarism is not ethical. The publisher of an article generally holds the copyright, and repeating language or copying figures without attribution is a violation of that copyright. Often, an editor will give an author a chance to rewrite a self-plagiarized paper, depending on the degree of overlap with previous manuscripts.
Scientific misconduct, such as falsification of data, usually is caught by reviewers rather than editors. This type of misconduct is rare, but it is dealt with severely when it comes to light.
SB: What is your journal doing to prevent fraudulent results being published? What tools are you using to detect unethical behavior?
JF: Peer reviewers are the major line of defense in discovering fraudulent results before publication. After publication, the audience of the journal may report fraud as well. In some fields, journals may subject figures and data tables to tests designed to detect some types of fraud as well. In the case of plagiarism, ACS journals routinely check papers that have made it through the first stage of review for overlap with other papers in the literature.
SB: Does the rejection rate of the journal say something about the quality of the articles published in it? Do journals provide information about the rejection rates for their journal?
JF: For better or for worse, impact factors have changed the face of scientific publishing. For example, I visited one university that has a rule that to earn a PhD, the sum of the impact factors for the journals for each article that a student has published must exceed a threshold value. In some countries, publication in a highly regarded international journal is required to earn a graduate degree. Impact factors also play a role in promotions and raises for faculty in many universities around the world.
Given the major impetus to publish in journals with the highest possible impact factor, there is unquestionably a link between impact factor and rejection rate. However, it is also important to note that impact factors vary tremendously from field to field. It is obviously not possible to reduce the importance of a journal to a single number, but such quantification has become increasingly important over the past couple of decades. Although essentially every journal publicizes its impact factor, very few journals reveal their rejection rates, probably for fear of scaring away potential authors.
SB: What do you think of the current state of the peer-review process and how do you see the future of peer review? What do you think of post-publication review?
JF: Overall, I would say that peer review is in good shape. No system is perfect, but so long as editors are careful and reviewers take their jobs seriously, peer review works pretty well. There is certainly a trend toward post-publication review in some fields, but it has not gained wide popularity. This situation might change in the future, but I think that this will depend on the attitudes and interests of the next generations of scientists.
SB: What happens (and does it happen often) when the rejection of a paper is contested?
JF: I suspect that the frequency with which rejections are contested is directly proportional to the impact factor of the journal in question. When the stakes are high, there tend to be fewer alternative venues for publication. From the standpoint of an editor and an author, I have seen the greatest success in contesting rejections when cogent arguments can be made that a reviewer was correct to question some aspect of the work, but that the issues were not as grave as the reviewer believed. This situation usually arises when the author has not been as clear as possible in their writing. One must take on a reasonable tone in any dealing with editors and accept defeat gracefully if need be.
SB: How can researchers increase their chance of getting their papers accepted for publication in good scientific journals?
JF: First, make sure that the topic of your paper is appropriate for the journal to which you submit. Second, write a detailed cover letter that explains to the editor why your paper belongs in that journal. Third, write the best paper that you can and have colleagues review it for you if needed. Finally, recommend qualified reviewers who can give an honest judgement of your work.