 |
Former
Editor-in-Chief Tefko Saracevic, Ph.D. |
 |
||
|
|
||||
THE REFEREEING PROCESS AT IP&M
Note: see also the refereeing form.
The basics of the refereeing procedures and criteria at IP&M are the same as followed by scholarly journals at large, however, the particulars are adapted to reflect our specific orientation and readership.
OBJECTIVES
Refereeing is a peer review process designed to help with rapid acceptance of good papers, improvement of salvageable ones and rejection of poor ones. The referee should be fair to the author, but also fair to readers and to other authors competing for space. The aim of IP&M is to publish papers of the highest possible quality and the peer review process is directed toward that aim.
Peer reviews have another important function. They are used to convey to the author the rationale for publishing decisions and also to provide constructive suggestions for revision, if necessary, or in case of rejection, suggestions for future actions or alternatives.
PROCEDURES
In general, each article submitted to IP&M requires two referees and each brief communication review by one. In exceptional cases there may be more reviews for a contribution, but never fewer.
When a manuscript arrives at the Editorial Office it is entered in the log book where all the actions on the manuscript are recorded, a file for the manuscript is established and a decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief whether it falls within the Aims and Scope of IP&M (published in every issue and available on the home page). If it does, the Editor-in-Chief selects two (or if necessary more) referees based on the coincidence of their subject expertise with the subject of the paper and their previous refereeing workload. The author can recommend referees for the paper as well. The referees are first contacted by email with a question whether they would be willing to review the given paper. If the answer is yes, the referees receive a copy of the paper, a two part refereeing form for recording of their recommendations and comments, and these instructions.
If the Editor-in-Chief determines at the outset that the contributed paper is clearly outside of IP&M's Aims and Scope, he sends the paper back to the author with an explanation and a possible recommendation for a journal for which the paper may be better suited. In this way, time is saved for the author.
The time it takes to referee a paper is the single largest variable which determines how quickly a paper will be published. We ask our referees to review the paper within two weeks (or so) and if they cannot to return the whole packet immediately. Unfortunately, at times (and more often than we wish) some referees take much longer than two weeks to return their recommendations and comments. Still, the return time remains a major problem and a headache over which the Editorial Office has little or no control. Both the authors and referees should be aware of this.
The collective opinion of referees is the major factor in the decision of whether a manuscript will be published. The recommendation of referees is followed in all but exceptional circumstances or when referees disagree. In these cases, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
Reviewer comments are of two kinds: those addressed to the Editorial Office and those addressed to the authors. Comments (including ratings of the paper on several criteria) addressed to the Editorial Office are NOT circulated. Comments to the author are sent to the author as is without identification of the referee. However, if a referee wishes to be identified comments to the author can be signed. To be or not to be identified is an option of the referee.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
A referee is asked to indicate a rating of either Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor or Very Poor on the following criteria:
1. Appropriateness for IP&M:
To what extent does the paper fall within the Aims and Scope of IP&M? (As mentioned, before sending a manuscript to a referee, a decision has been made by the Editorial Office that the subject matter of the manuscript falls in general within the aims and scope of IP&M. However, a referee may still comment on the appropriateness of inclusion by comparing the subject covered in the manuscript with the statement of IP&M's Aims and Scope)
2. Significance of the problem addressed:
To what extent does the paper address a problem or subject of importance to the current or anticipated direction of the field as a whole? (At the extremes, the problem addressed could be significant but the treatment poor or the treatment could be excellent, but the problem of marginal importance.)
3. Originality and value for future work:
To what extent is the work reported unique, unusual or enlightening in terms of concepts, treatment, methods, data, interpretation, and/or application? What is the possible value for future work on this or a related area?
4. Quality of methodology or treatment:
To what extent is the method valid (that is, accomplishes what is claimed) and reliable (that is, accurate, reproducible) and/or the treatment logical? Are the assumptions warranted? Are the methods competent and appropriate? If used, are samples and sampling procedures and sizes adequate and identified?
5. Adequacy of citations and recognition of previous work:
To what extent is the awareness of previous or related work demonstrated? (Is the wheel reinvented?) Are the citations appropriately integrated into the text and are they adequate? Is the work integrated into the larger body of knowledge?
6. Validity of claims and interpretations:
Do the claims, interpretations, and conclusion follow logically from facts collected or observations made? Do conclusions relate to the hypotheses or questions asked? To what extent are speculations substituted for logical interpretation?
7. Organization, style and clarity of presentation:
Is the paper well organized and clear? Are the problems, concepts, definitions, and/or hypotheses well stated? Can the methods be clearly followed? Are conclusions or proofs clear? If the paper is mathematical, can an educated but non-mathematical reader follow the reasoning? (Obscurity of mathematical papers is the number one complaint of readers; mathematical papers can and should be written to be understood by a non-specialist.)
DECISIONS ON ACCEPTANCE
A referee has the option to recommend one of the following:
1. Accept as is: the paper should be published without changes.
2. Accept with minor revisions: the paper should be published, but with some changes. In case of this recommendation, the paper is returned to the author for revisions as suggested and upon receipt of the revised manuscript the changes are evaluated by the Editorial Office and if satisfactory the paper is sent to the printer for publishing.
3. Reconsider after major revision: the paper should be accepted in principle only and major revisions are recommended. In case of this recommendation, the paper is returned to the author with a suggestion to undertake major revision as indicated. Upon receipt of the revision the paper reenters the refereeing process or the changes are evaluated by the Editorial Office.
4. Reject: the paper should not be published. The referee is asked to state in the comments to the author clearly, but kindly, the reasons for not accepting the manuscript, possibly including suggestions for future actions.
In addition, the referees are asked to indicate their recommendation for priority for publishing on a five point scale from low to high priority.
RECOGNITION OF REFEREEING
Because of time and money constraints it is impossible to keep the referees directly informed about the eventual disposition of reviewed manuscripts. However, in exceptional circumstances there may be a follow up by email, phone or letter.
It is fully recognized that refereeing is a job that consumes precious time and effort. It goes with the territory of being a peer. However, refereeing is also a job that is absolutely essential to the progress of this and any other field. Refereeing certainly has flaws, but it is still the most effective way for judgment and governance of activities in a field.
This journal values highly the work of its referees. In recognition, periodically IP&M will publish the names of referees as a list of collaborators we honor.