دورة مهارة تقييم الأبحاث العلمية

مهارات تقييم األبحاث العلمية

دكتور محمد فوزى رمضان حسانينستاذأ

عمادة البحث العلمي

PhD Natural Sciences 2004

PostDoc 2006

PostDoc 2007-2008

PostDoc 2009

Arab distinguished Fellow

PostDoc 2011

PostDoc 2011

Visiting Professor

2012

Visiting Professor

2010

.تصنيف الدوريات العالمية وارتباطة بالتحكيم الدولى-

التعرف على طرق اختيار مؤلف الورقة البحثية للمحكم -

Peer reviewer المناظر

التعرف على طرق اختيار هيئة تحرير الدوريات العالمية للمحكم -

Peer reviewerالمناظر

التعرف على العالقة بين المؤلف و هيئة تحرير الدورية العالمية و -

.المحكم

.التعرف على قواعد واستبيانات التقييم فى الدوريات العالمية-

Technical checkتقييم االوراق البحثية من الناحية الفنية -

Scientific evaluationتقييم االوراق البحثية من الناحية العلمية -

التعرف على النقاط الواجب تقييمها فى كل جزء من اجزاء الورقة -

(.المراجع-المناقشات-النتائج -الطرق -المقدمة -الملخص)البحثية

محاور ورشة العمل

The goal is to provide an outline of the important steps to follow when reviewing a manuscript, with focus on the reviewer’s role in the peer review process.

-Journals with lower article acceptance rates are considered to be more prestigious.

-The method of calculating acceptance rates varies among journals. -Some journals use all manuscripts received as a base for computing this rate. -Other journals use manuscripts which sent to reviewers and calculate the acceptance rate on those.

-Some journals include the acceptance rate in the “information for authors” on the home pages for the journal.

Journal Ranking & Peer Review

Publishing process

Manuscript preparation (article, cover letter, practical applications and research highlights)

Manuscript submission

Manuscript revision

Revised article submission

Decision from the editor

Proof reading and editing

Publishing (online and printed copy)

Author

Editor

Reviewer

The reviewer recommends, the editor decides

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.

Purpose of Peer Review

-To select the best manuscript for the journals.

-To determine the originality of the manuscript.

-To improve the quality of the published papers.

-To ensure that previous work is acknowledged.

-To determine the importance of findings. -To detect plagiarism

-To detect fraud.

Reviewers are NOT asked to

detect plagiarism,

fraud and other ethics issues

But it would be great if they could and would !!

Authors often see peer review as a terrible hurdle they need to take

before they can published their work

Is this Peer Review !!??

Treat all manuscripts as you would your own

manuscript to be treated by other reviewers

The best reviewers tend to see themselves as teachers or mentors rather than critics !

How can authors select peer reviewers?

How can editors select peer

reviewers !!!?

Ethics and Peer Review

!Scientists wear many hats

Author

Reviewer Editor

Reader

What do researchers want as authors and as readers?

Reader Author

x Ownership

x x Certification (quality stamp)

x Dissemination (get noted)

x Accessibility

x x Navigation (indexing)

x Archiving

What do authors want from reviewers?

Fair treatment

What do readers want from reviewers?

Trustworthy articles

Fair treatment of authors

Peer review is based on

The peer review process is based on trust -trust between authors and editors -trust between edits and reviewers

Reviewer responsibilities

-The article you review is confidential document.

-The content is and remains the property of authors.

-Reviewer should not disclose it to others.

-Reviewer must keep it confidential until the review process has been completed.

As a Reviewer, YOU SHOULD

-not use data/idea reported in the manuscript. -not communicate directly with authors. -provide an honest and critical assessment. -provide suggestions for improvement. -help the editors to reach a decision by writing a review report by recommending Acceptance/Revision/Rejection

-Only accept to review manuscripts in your area of expertise when you can complete the review on time

Ethics issues in publishing

-Publication misconduct -Plagiarism -Duplicate publication -Duplicate submission -Appropriate acknowledgment of prior research

-Scientific misconduct -Fabrication-Making up research data -Falsification- Manipulation of exciting data -Improper use of humans and animals in research

Peer reviewing Process in international journals

Technical Revision

Scientific Revision

First revision

Technical screening

-Technical Screening is a process to solve ‘technical’ problems such as poor English.

-Manuscripts that do not meet standard are returned to the corresponding author, with a check-list of missing or insufficient items.

-Authors can resubmit the paper after attending to these technical insufficiencies.

Author response to technical check Dear Editor, Thank you for your useful comments on the language and structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point: 1) In its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal's required standard. Authors have the responsibility to present their papers in good English. - We have revised the manuscript carefully and we have asked colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process. 2) Please note that your abstract (250 words) has exceeded the maximum length of 150 words for research articles in this journal. -The abstract has been revised and its word count is now 149. 3) Figures should be cited in sequential order in the main text. In your manuscript, Fig. 6 is provided but not cited. Please check and revise. - Now all figures are provided and cited in sequence in the main text.

Author response to technical check (cont.)

4) A cover letter should include the following statement: the manuscript has not been previously published, is not currently submitted for review to any other journal, and will not be submitted elsewhere before a decision is made. -The required information is now included in the cover letter.

5) The manuscript should be typewritten in uniform lettering and sizing, and with double spacing throughout. - We now have used uniform lettering and sizing throughout the manuscript, with double spacing. 6) The reference style must conform strictly to the journal’s Guide for Authors -We have checked all the references and formatted them according to the Guide for Authors. The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response. Sincerely,

Second revision

Scientific Revision

-Journals have different assessment forms for reviewers

-Reviewers should consider different points and write confidential comments.

Invitation

How to review a manuscript?

General impression

-Look at the manuscript as a whole -General comprehension of the manuscript -Language/style/grammar -Structure

An Example of Assessment Form

The following points should be considered

General 1. Objectives are clearly stated. 2. Work is novel has justifiable grounds for repetition. 3. Title is informative but compact. 4. Title plus keywords are appropriate for effective data retrieval. 5. Summary is an accurate synopsis of content. 6. Introduction is balanced but not exhaustive. 7. The paper is informative to the general reader of the Journal.

An Example of Assessment Form (cont.)

Materials and methods 9. Experimental procedures are sound, appropriate, and up to date. 10. Sufficient experimental detail are given for independent repetition, 11. Details covered by references where possible. 12. Key details essential to understanding the work are given.

Results 13. Are presented with clarity and economy of space (efficient use of figures and tables) with no unnecessary detail. 14. Data are appropriately analyzed. Conclusions 15. Are fully supported by the evidence presented. 16. Speculation is clearly identifiable. 17. Are helpful to the reader.

An Example of Assessment Form (cont.)

References 18. Appropriate (complete on key references, but not exhaustive). 19. Correct and readily available. Recommendation Accept- Minor Revision- Major Revision- Reject & Resubmit – Reject Comments Confidential Comments to the Editor-in-Chief

An Example of Assessment Form (cont.)

Reviewer Report

The article might be -Accepted as it is. -Accepted after minor revision -Accepted after major revision - Rejected and could be resubmitted - Rejected

Dealing with reviewers̕ comments

Response to revision request

Reviewer comment Author response

Reviewer 1

Dear Editor in chief It is my pleasure to send you the revised version of my/our article entitled

“Article title” to be considered for publication in your journal. Thanks for the careful revision that been done to my/our article. The comments

and suggestion highlighted by reviewers have been considered in the revised manuscript. The modifications, additions and corrections are appeared in red color within article.

Hoping that the changes introduced improve the manuscript in satisfactory way, I remain With my best regards Sincerely yours,

Contact information

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Fawzy Ramadan Hassanien

Scientific Research Deanship

Email: mhassanien@uqu.edu.sa

Webpage: www.mframadan.webs.com