Medicine : Academic Editor Tutorial - LWW Journalsjournals.lww.com/md-journal/Documents/MD_Academic... · Medicine® Academic Editor Tutorial - 1 ... Alternately, Editors are able

Medicine® Academic Editor Tutorial - 1

Academic Editor Tutorial

Contents

I. Assignments

a. Receiving an invitation

b. Responding to an invitation

c. Primary review

i. Cascading peer review

II. Inviting additional reviewers

a. Reviewer selection modes

i. Search for Reviewers

ii. Search by Classification Matches

iii. Search by Personal Classifications

iv. Suggest Reviewers

b. Invite reviewers

III. Reviewer Ratings

IV. Review forms

V. Submitting a decision

a. Decision terms

VI. Accepted articles

VII. Academic Editor support


Assignments Medicine® does not directly assign manuscripts to Academic Editors. Instead, Medicine® invites a pool of

Academic Editors, whose personal classifications match the classifications of the article, to claim the

manuscript. The first Academic Editor to claim the manuscript is assigned, and the other invited

Academic Editors are notified that the manuscript has been claimed. Only one Academic Editor may

claim a manuscript.

Receiving an invitation Invitations to claim manuscripts will appear in the “New Invitations” folder of the Academic Editor Main

Menu (Figure 1). The invitation will also be sent via email, which will include links to either accept or

decline the invitation (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Academic Editor Main Menu

Figure 2. Academic Editor invitation email.


Responding to an invitation You may respond to the Academic Editor invitation in one of two ways:

1. You may log-in to Editorial Manager (http://www.editorialmanager.com/md) as an Academic

Editor. Open the “New Invitations” folder and select “Yes I will take this Assignment” or “No I

will not take this Assignment” from the Action Menu (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

2. You may also click either of the links included in the Invitation email (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

If the invitation is accepted, the manuscript is moved into the New Assignments folder of the Academic

Editor Main Menu (Figure 1). All other invited Academic Editors will be notified via email that the

manuscript has been assigned. When declining an invitation for assignment, an Academic Editor will be

asked to provide from a drop-down list the reason for declining.

http://www.editorialmanager.com/md


Primary review From the “New Assignments” folder, an Academic Editor may take the following actions from the drop-

down Action Menu (Figure 5):

Figure 5.

1. View submission. Downloads a PDF file of the complete submission, including figures, tables,

reporting guidelines supporting documents and links to supplemental digital content.

2. Details. Provides author information, submission data, and any notes provided by the Editorial

Office.

3. Initiate discussion. During the Editorial process, there may be times when an Editor wants to

solicit opinions or feedback from other Editors regarding a submission tangential to the main

decision chain. A discussion can be initiated at any point in the workflow, and is tangential to

the editorial workflow of Editor assignment, peer review, and Editor decision. The discussion is

a side-bar conversation where Editors can pose questions and post comments without delaying

the editorial or production process in any way.

4. History. View the status and correspondence history of the manuscript.

5. File Inventory. View/download the individual components of the manuscript in their native

format.

6. Classifications. Allows Editor to View/Modify the article’s classifications.

7. Invite Reviewers. Provides mechanisms for searching for existing reviewers, registering new

reviewers and inviting reviewers.

8. Similar Articles in MEDLINE. Provides a list of articles in MEDLINE based on title/keyword

similarity. An excellent resource for finding potential reviewers.

9. Submit Editor’s Decision and Comments. Final step in the review process.

The primary review of the manuscript should assess the overall appropriateness of the manuscript for

Medicine®. Based on this review, if a manuscript is clearly non-scientific, or outside of the scope of a

scientific publication, an Academic Editor may choose to submit a decision rather than solicit further

review. As a rule, Academic Editors are encouraged to seek at least 2 additional reviews prior to

submitting an editorial decision.


Cascading Peer Review Medicine® is linked to approximately 50 other Wolters Kluwer titles by a process called “Cascading Peer

Review.” In this model, articles from other journals can be transferred at the author’s request to

Medicine®. With “Cascading Peer Review” Academic Editors and reviewers may be able to see the

previous review from the manuscript if the author and editorial office allow the review to be passed on.

Academic Editors have access to the Cascading Peer Review by selecting

“Details” under the article Action items (Figure 6). In the bottom of the Details

page will be a section “Transfer Information” where you will be able to view

the Transfer Letter from the journal.

Figure 6.

If the Editor of the Cascading Journal allows the reviews to be viewed by Medicine® the Transfer Letter

will include the Editors comments as well as the final Reviewer comments to the paper. Please feel free

to use these comments in addition to your assessment of the article. These comments can give further

insight into the manuscript and can help to improve the overall review and publication.

Figure 7.


Inviting Additional Reviewers As mentioned, in order to provide a rigorous review, Medicine® encourages Academic Editors to seek at

least 2 additional reviews prior to submitting an editorial decision. Editorial Manager provides several

methods for Academic Editors to select reviewers.

Clicking “Invite Reviewers” on the manuscript action drop-down menu (Figure 5) opens the “Reviewer

Selection Summary” Page (Figure 8).

Figure 8.

Reviewer Selection Modes The Editor starts at the ‘Reviewer Selection Summary’ page, and chooses the Reviewer selection mode

from a set of drop-down boxes. One drop-down box lists the six primary Reviewer selection modes:

Search for Reviewers

Suggested by Author

Search by Classification Matches

Search by Personal Classifications

Suggest Reviewers

The second drop-down box lists:

The different Reviewer roles

An option to select from the entire Reviewer database (all roles)


An option to search the entire people database (this includes people who have indicated they

are willing to review, people who are not willing to review, and people who are forbidden from

being Reviewers)

Note: If the person returned in the result set is forbidden from being a Reviewer in this journal,

it is indicated in red text in the Reviewer Name column, and the selection box is suppressed.

The Editor would first select the selection mode, and then select the Reviewer role, then click 'Go'.

Search for Reviewers Mode

When ‘Search for Reviewers’ is selected from the search mode drop-down box the Editor is delivered to

a search interface upon clicking the ‘Go’ button. The user is presented 6 rows for entering criteria, and

additional rows can be added by clicking the ‘Add’ button below the search fields.

The following fields are included in the criteria drop-down box:

Last Name

First Name

E-mail address

Position

Department

Institution

City

State

Country

People Notes

Personal Classifications

Personal Keywords

Figure 9.


Search by Classification Matches Mode

When ‘Search by Classification Matches’ is selected the Editor can search for Reviewers based on

matches between the Manuscript Classifications and Reviewers’ ‘Personal Classifications’. The Editor is

delivered to a page that lists all Classifications associated with the manuscript and the number of

Reviewers associated with each Classification.

The Editor may select one or more Classifications. A list of Reviewers associated with the selected

Classifications is returned. The list can be ordered by number of matching Classifications (see ‘My

Reviewer Display Preferences’ section). The Manuscript Classifications are listed at the top of the page

for reference purposes.

Note: The list is organized by Classification Term, with associated Reviewers listed below each term. A

Reviewer may appear multiple times if they have multiple Classification matches. When the Editor

selects a Reviewer’s name by clicking the checkbox, that Reviewer is displayed as ‘selected’ throughout

the list, under each Classification Term that they are associated with. However, they will only receive

one invitation.

Search by Personal Classification Mode

When ‘Search by Personal Classifications’ is selected, the Editor can search for Reviewers based on the

Personal Classifications associated with each Reviewer. The Editor is delivered to a page that lists all of

the Classifications that are assigned to people in the system with a checkbox next to each term. The

Editor can select a maximum of 5 Classification Terms. A list of Reviewers associated with the selected

Classifications is returned. The list can be ordered by number of matching Classifications (see ‘My

Reviewer Display Preferences’ section).

Note: The Manuscript Classifications are listed at the top of the page for reference purposes.

Note: The list of Classifications may appear incomplete because it is a list of all Classifications assigned

to people; it is not a complete list of Classifications. If a Classification term does not appear on the list,

then that means no one in the system has selected that term as a Personal Classification.

Note: Unlike the Search by Classification Matches, which identifies matches between the Reviewer’s

Personal Classifications and the submission’s Manuscript Classifications, this mode allows the user to

search for Reviewers by Classification, independent of the Manuscript Classifications.


Invite Reviewers When an Editor searches for a Reviewer, he will see up to 2 selection boxes for each reviewer returned

in the results (Inv., Alt.). Editors with Invite Reviewer permission will see a selection box labeled ‘Inv.’

When Reviewers are selected, and the Editor clicks the ‘Proceed’ button, the ‘Confirm Selections’ page

(Figure 10) displays the Reviewers in sections based on the checkbox selected for each Reviewer (Invite,

Alternate). The Invited Reviewers display with the default letter that is selected for the ‘Reviewer

Invited’ event.

Figure 10.

Academic Editors will be notified when a reviewer either accepts or declines an invitation to review.

Reviewers are provided 5 days to respond to a review invitation, and 10 days to complete the review

(counted from the date of acceptance of invitation).

Note: The default number of required reviews for each article type is 2. The general rule is to invite at

least 2 reviewers, and if possible, 2 to 4 alternate reviewers who will be automatically invited if the

initial invitations are declined or not responded to within 5 days.

While the manuscript remains under review, it will appear in the Academic Editor’s “Submissions

Requiring Additional Reviewers” folder (Figure 1).

Once the required number of reviews have been received, the manuscript will move into the Academic

Editor’s “Submissions with Required Reviews Complete” folder (Figure 1). The Academic Editor will

receive an email notification as each review is received and when the required number of reviews have

been completed.

Reviewers Ratings Once a review has been completed, Academic Editors must score the peer reviewers review based on a

scale of 1-100, with 100 indicating the highest possible quality. Please keep in mind that if a reviewer

submits their review on time and provides constructive analysis that helps you make a decision on a

manuscript, they have fulfilled their basic duties as a journal reviewer.


To complete the reviewer rating process, simply follow the steps below:

1. From your Academic Editor Main Menu, locate the manuscript. Depending on the status of the

submission, the paper may be in any of the folders in the Editor ‘To-Do’ List section.

2. Once you have located the submission, click the “View Reviews and Comments” link (see image

below):

Figure 11.

3. Clicking this link will open a pop-up window that will allow you to see all reviews associated with

the manuscript, including a list of all reviewers who have agreed to review and have completed

reviews, as well as reviews that are in process. From this window, select the reviewer whose

review you would like to rate by clicking on their decision term (Accept, Reject, Revise, etc.)

4. After clicking on the reviewer’s decision term you will be taken to a page that will display the

entire review. Near the top of the page will be the Rate Review section. In the accompanying

text box, type in your reviewer rating. The rating system is on a scale from 1-100, with 100

representing the highest possible quality review. Once the review rating is added, scroll down to

the bottom of the page and click the Save and Close button.

Figure 12.Review Forms


Each Medicine article type has a corresponding review form, and each review form follows the same

basic format:

Conflict of interest statement

Reporting guidelines compliance: As a measure of reviewer quality control, each review form

asks a specific question related to the corresponding reporting guideline for that article type.

For example, for the article type “OA: Clinical Trial/Experimental Study (CONSORT Compliant)”

the review form requires that the reviewer identify the manuscript page on which the author

has discussed the “Trial limitations, addressing sources of potential bias, imprecision, and, if

relevant, multiplicity of analyses."

Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript

must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the

conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls,

replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data

presented.

Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Does the manuscript adhere to standards in this field for data availability? Authors must follow

field-specific standards for data deposition in publicly available resources and should include

accession numbers in the manuscript when relevant. The manuscript should explain what steps

have been taken to make data available, particularly in cases where data cannot be publicly

deposited.

Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Additional comments to Author (optional)

If you would like your identity to be revealed to the authors, please include your name here

(optional).

Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional)

Do you have any concerns about either the manuscript or your suitability to review that you

wish to convey to the Editor in confidence?


Submitting a Decision An Academic Editor can make a Decision on an assigned submission at any time. Editors submit their

Decisions by clicking on the Action link called ‘Submit Editor’s Decision and Comments’ (Figure 5). If an

Editor starts his decision prior to the Required number of Reviews being met (i.e., the Minimum Number

of Required Reviewers is set to ‘2’, but only 1 review has been returned), the Minimum Number of

Required Reviewers for that submission will be reset to the number of reviews that have been returned.

This also moves the submission to the Editor’s ‘Submissions with Required Reviews Complete’ folder.

Figure 13.

When the Editor clicks the ‘Submit Editor’s Decision and Comments’ link, the form that is presented for

submitting a Decision has several components (Figure 13):

1. Drop-down box with Decision Term choices.

a. Accept

b. Accept pending minor revision

c. Revise

d. Reject

2. Manuscript Rating (optional). The Editor can rate the submission using a 1-100 scale. There is

only one rating opportunity

3. ‘Details’ link provides access to the Manuscript ‘Details’ page

4. ‘History’ link provides access to the ‘Status’ and/or ‘History’ page

5. ‘Similar Articles in MEDLINE’ link provides access to this feature

6. ‘Attachments (x)’ link allows the Editor access to any Attachments associated with the

completed reviews (depending on publication configuration), or to add any additional

attachments as part of the decision

7. ‘Invite Reviewers’ link provides access to the ‘Reviewer Selection Summary’ where the Editor

can go to invite additional Reviewers or Un-invite/Un-assign Reviewers


8. ‘View Manuscript Rating Card’ link provides access to a page with a comprehensive, detailed

picture of all individual Manuscript Rating scores for a particular submission

9. ‘Send E-mail’ link is available for Editors with ‘Send Ad-Hoc E-mail’ permission, allowing them to

send e-mail from this page

10. Reviewer, Editor and Decision Grid displays the Reviewers and Editors assigned to each version

of the submission, along with their Recommendation or Decision, the Decision Letter that the

Author received for previous versions, and the Author’s ‘Response to Reviewers’. The Editor

and Reviewer Names link to their Activity Details (contact information, performance statistics,

and a list of submission they are reviewing or have reviewed, handling as an Editor, or

Authored). The Recommendation and Decision Terms are links to the actual comments made by

that person. Each version of the submission is also accessible through each header link on this

Grid.

11. ‘Comments to Editor’ textbox allows the Editor to view any comments that Reviewers have

submitted that are directed to the Editor. The Editor can add and or change any of the

comments in this box.

12. ‘Comments to Author’ textbox allows the Editor to view any comments that Reviewers have

submitted that are directed to the Author. This is where the Editor prepares all of the comments

from Reviewers and subordinate Editors that the Editor would like inserted into the Decision

Letter. This is also where the Editor enters her own comments for the Author.

13. A grid of configured Review Questions and Responses may be displayed.

Decision Terms Again, it is important to stress that when making a decision, Medicine’s mission is to publish articles that

are scientifically, technically, and ethically valid. For example, this may include negative results or

manuscripts that replicate results of previous studies. A manuscript’s novelty, originality, or potential

for impact are not a consideration for publication.

Accept: Manuscript is ready for publication in its current state.

Accept pending minor revision: Manuscript is scientifically ready for publication, but may need

minor revisions (eg, figure formatting, reference formatting) prior to publication. The Editorial

Office will likely make this determination when reviewing a decision of Accept.

Revise: Manuscript has merit, but for publication will require significant revisions to the

scientific content or structure.

Reject: Manuscript is fundamentally flawed, and should not be published.

Once a decision has been submitted, the manuscript will move into the Academic Editor’s “My

Assignments with Decision” folder (Figure 1). The Editorial Office will review the decision, and notify the

author. If the decision was either Accept or Reject, the manuscript is assigned a ‘final disposition’ by the

Editorial Office, and the manuscript will move into the Academic Editor’s “My Assignments with Final

Disposition” folder (Figure 1).


Accepted Articles Accepted articles are submitted to production immediately upon acceptance, and published online

within 4-6 weeks.

Important Note: The Academic Editor’s name will be published on the title page of the article, along

with submission data (eg, date submitted, date of decision).

Academic Editor Support Although many of you are familiar with Editorial Manager as reviewers, the Editor functions—in

particular, Reviewer selection—can be complex. Editorial Manager does provide an online help system,

but it is essential that you reach out the Medicine® Editorial Office at [email protected] for

any help or guidance you may need.

Once again, our deepest appreciation for your willingness to support Medicine®.

mailto:[email protected]