Hi. I m Karen McKee and today I'm going to talk about pre-submission peer reviews
of scientific papers and why you need them.
A pre-submission peer review is a process whereby a manuscript is evaluated
by a colleague prior to submission to a journal.
A collegial or friendly peer review is solicited by the author who seeks the opinion of an expert
about the manuscript and who is free to make the suggested changes or not.
An internal peer review is also one conducted by a subject matter expert but may be required by a
research institution prior to submission of the manuscript to a journal. In an internal review,
the author is usually required to respond to reviewers comments and suggestions.
A pre-submission peer review is usually conducted by someone who has no vested interest in the
paper's publication. Often, the reviewer is an expert in the field of study but not always.
Some manuscripts may be read by technicians or lab directors
prior to submission. Although such readers can provide useful comments, they may have difficulty
looking at the paper with an open mind and so are not generally considered to be peer reviewers.
The reason for soliciting pre-submission reviews is to get feedback that will improve the paper
and increase its chances of being accepted by a journal. For some researchers in government
or private industry, pre-submission reviews may be required prior to submission to a journal.
For example, before retiring, I worked for a Federal government agency in the US.
All scientific papers I wrote had to go through internal review by at least two subject matter
experts as well as supervisors and other officials who screened the manuscripts for adherence to
agency policies. Researchers in academia may seek collegial reviews by a coworker in their
department or by someone in their field working at another institution. Another option is to
post the manuscript on a preprint server such as bioRxiv where others can read and comment on it.
Pre-submission reviews, whether required or not, can help an author avoid embarrassing mistakes,
tighten the paper s logic, and generally polish the writing so that the manuscript is in the best
possible shape when it goes to the journal. If you are a student and it s your first paper,
it s especially important to get someone, an advisor or committee member, for example,
to read the manuscript and provide feedback. I once read a student s manuscript in which
the test subject s species name was misspelled throughout. It was a simple transposition of
two letters, but imagine what kind of impression such a mistake would make on a journal editor
or reviewer? Pre-submission reviews have helped me by noting ambiguous wording as well as
gaps in my logic. They also helped me anticipate and address potential criticisms that might be
raised by journal reviewers. Pre-submission reviews can thus save you and the journal time
and effort by dealing with problems before the paper is sent out for formal review.
That's something each author needs to decide based on their unique situation.
If you have never published or your papers keep getting rejected, it might be worth the time and
effort to get pre-submission reviews. On the other hand, if you are an experienced author,
you may not need such feedback. However, in my experience, most of my papers have benefitted
from internal reviews and in some cases likely helped them pass journal review.
Manuscripts may undergo one or more peer reviews prior to submission.
You will often see the names of such reviewers in the paper's acknowledgements section.
At a minimum, try to get at least two collegial reviews,
preferably by different subject matter experts. I often try to get a review by one specialist in
the topic of the paper and another review by someone in the broader field of study.
The specialist can assess theoretical issues, technical procedures, and references cited, for
example. The generalist reviewer can also provide comments on such issues but can additionally
provide valuable feedback as to whether the paper is understandable by a non-specialist.
Getting pre-submission reviews can be difficult because everyone is busy and may not want to
waste their time on them. One solution is to offer to review your colleague's papers in
exchange for their review. You may also post your manuscript to a preprint server, but there is no
guarantee that you'll get constructive criticism or any comments at all. A final option is to hire
a scientific editor to assess the writing or English language if that is your main issue.
Mainly, you want someone who will provide constructive criticism and
not just a generic sentence or two of praise. It may feel good to get comments like this:
Your paper sounds great! I couldn t find anything wrong! You should have no trouble
getting this published! But such comments won t help you. In fact, no paper is perfect,
even after multiple revisions and reviews. So, be skeptical when someone says your draft
manuscript needs no more work. A reviewer should be willing to carefully read your paper and point
out flaws in the design or interpretation and other problems, both major and minor.
Such feedback provides you with specific information needed to improve your paper.
By getting feedback, you can improve the chances of your paper being accepted
by the journal and reduce the risk of publishing flawed work. Thanks for watching
and if you found the information useful, please like my video and subscribe to my channel.