SciPost Code Repository

Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit 847dfd37 authored by Jean-Sébastien Caux's avatar Jean-Sébastien Caux
Browse files

Initiate work on guide to refereeing (informal/accessible version)

parent e6ff9474
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
submissions/templates/submissions/refereeing_guidelines.html 0 → 100644
+ 302
− 0
View file @ 847dfd37
{% extends 'scipost/base.html' %}
{% load staticfiles %}
{% block pagetitle %}: refereeing guide{% endblock pagetitle %}
{% block breadcrumb %}
<div class="container-outside header">
<div class="container">
<nav class="breadcrumb hidden-sm-down">
<span class="breadcrumb-item">Refereeing guide</span>
</nav>
</div>
</div>
{% endblock %}
{% block content %}
<h1 class="highlight-x">Refereeing at SciPost</h1>
<h2 class="highlight-x">A guide for referees and authors</h2>
<p>
The following is a general guide to refereeing at SciPost.
Slightly informal in style, it is meant to introduce you to how peer review works at SciPost.
It does not replace
our Journals' <a href="{% url 'journals:journals_terms_and_conditions' %}">Terms and Conditions</a>
(which extend the general <a href="{% url 'scipost:terms_and_conditions' %}">SciPost Terms and Conditions</a>), which remain in force as official rules.
</p>
<p>
Referees should in particular be familiar with
our <a href="{% url 'journals:journals_terms_and_conditions' %}#referee_code_of_conduct">referee code of conduct</a>.
Authors should in particular be familiar with
our <a href="{% url 'journals:journals_terms_and_conditions' %}#author_obligations">author obligations</a>.
</p>
<h2 class="highlight">For referees</h2>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-6">
<h3>Have you been invited to write a Report?</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<h4>Please promptly accept or decline the invitation</h4>
<p>
To make your life as easy as possible, the email invitation
you will have received contains simple one-click
actions to accept/decline the task. As a simple but effective
mark of respect to our authors, Fellows and editorial team,
and to help us minimize delays in processing submissions,
please respond promptly to any invitation you receive.
</p>
<p>
Should you wish to be permanently removed from our list of referees,
please email our <a href="mailto:edadmin@scipost.org">editorial administration</a>.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Comply with our conflict-of-interest rules</h4>
<p>
Conflict of interest is a serious matter, and you should ensure that you do not
transgress our rules. You should not referee if you have:
<ul>
<li>published joint work with one or more of the authors in the last 3 years</li>
<li>an ongoing collaboration with one or more of the authors</li>
<li>a personal relationship with one (or more!) of the authors</li>
<li>a hierarchical connection with one or more of the authors</li>
<li>doubts or feel conflicted due to a close link between the work
refereed and your own work</li>
</ul>
</p>
<p>
<strong>Note</strong>: in some fields, it is customary for extremely large numbers of
authors to publish jointly. In such cases, the co-authorship disqualifier is relaxed,
and conflict of interest is assessed primarily on the basis of active collaboration.
</p>
<p>
If you feel that a conflict of interest exists, you should email our
<a href="mailto:edadmin@scipost.org">editorial administration</a>, explaining the matter.
They will be able to assess whether such a conflict exists.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Please deliver your Report in time</h4>
<p>
Following acceptance, you should provide a report within the allocated refereeing
period. It is preferable to deliver a shorter report within the expected time
than no report at all.
</p>
<p>
If you had accepted to send a Report, but subsequently decide not to proceed,
please send a communication to the Submission's Editor-in-charge
(you can do this from your <a href="{% url 'scipost:personal_page' %}">personal page</a>,
under the refereeing tab).
</p>
</ul>
<h3>What do we ask you in our Report form?</h3>
<p>When filling in a Report form, you will be asked for:</p>
<ul>
<li>your assessment of your qualification for refereeing this submission (form: choice field, from expert to ... not qualified!)</li>
<li>your evaluation of the strengths of the submission (form: text area)</li>
<li>your evaluation of its weaknesses (form: text area)</li>
<li>your actual report in textual free-style form (form: text area)</li>
<li>the list of changes you request to the authors</li>
<li>your assessment of the validity, significance, originality and clarity of the submission (form: choice field, from top to poor)</li>
<li>your assessment of the formatting and grammatical level of the submission (form: choice field, from perfect to mediocre)</li>
<li>your recommendation, which can be one of:
<ul>
<li>Publish (top 10% of papers in this Journal)</li>
<li>Publish (top 50%)</li>
<li>Publish (meets criteria of this Journal)</li>
<li>Ask for minor revision</li>
<li>Ask for major revision</li>
<li>Reject</li>
</ul>
</li>
<p>
You can make use of TeX mathematical formulas in the text areas, thanks to MathJax.
Note that only basic elements are available (see
</p>
</ul>
<h3>Before you write your Report</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<h4>read the paper!</h4>
<p>
This might sound obvious, but don't skim on this.
Take the time, and give the paper a chance. You might actually learn something
new and interesting.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>Writing your Report</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<h4>identify the strong points of the paper</h4>
<p>
Start with the positive.
What did the authors (try to) do? What did they achieve?
Even if you end up being very critical of the work, your criticisms will
have much more credibility and convincing power if you make it clear that you have
given the authors a chance.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>try to be constructive and put your fingers on points that could be improved</h4>
<p>
Nothing is perfect, and even for the better aspects of a paper, you might be
able to suggest ways in which things could be improved.
See "things to focus on while writing your report" for some ideas.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>if any, note the weaknesses of the paper</h4>
<p>
Science thrives on constructive criticism. Your expertise is needed to
ensure that the papers which are published at SciPost achieve the highest-quality
end result achievable. If you have objections to the methods, results or conlusions
in the paper, it is your task as an expert to underline them.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>The characteristics of a good Report</h3>
<p>There are no fixed rules or expectations, but a good report is typically:</p>
<ul>
<li>constructive and useful to the authors</li>
<li>fair to the authors and respectful of their work</li>
<li>clear</li>
<li>succinct</li>
<li>organized and systematic</li>
<li>properly referenced (if further literature is mentioned)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="col-6">
<h3>FAQ</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<h4>Can you include me in your list of referees?</h4>
<p>
Any qualified academic is welcome to perform refereeing work for us.
There are two ways to become a referee:
<ul>
<li>by being explicitly invited by the Editor-in-charge of a Submission</li>
<li>by writing a Contributed Report</li>
</ul>
<br/>
If you are a known expert in your area, the first will inevitably happen at some point.
If you are a Registered Contributor at SciPost, you can contribute a Report on
any Submission currently undergoing refereeing.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Why should I do it?</h4>
<p>
To put it brutally: because it's your job. A more polite way of saying it is:
because it's your duty as a scientist. As an author, you benefit from others'
work as referees, so it is collegial of you to return the favour.
</p>
<p>
That said, there is a substantial benefit to perfoming refereeing work at SciPost.
Your Report will be made citable (through giving it a DOI). You can then even
quantify your refereeing activity in your CV if you so wish. View this as a mark
of respect for the valuable work which you will put into it.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Will you protect my anonymity as a referee?</h4>
<p>
Yes.
It is very important to avoid a simple confusion here:
you can certainly elect to be (and forever remain) anonymous
when you referee. Our <a href="{% url 'scipost:FAQ' %}#pwr">peer-witnessed refereeing</a>
method only means that we insist on making the Report
<em>contents</em> publicly available, not the name of the person who wrote them.
</p>
<p>
That said, we give you the possibility (and would like to explicitly encourage you)
to sign your
Reports. It is entirely possible to be very critical of a paper, while revealing your
identity (after all, we academics do this all the time during conferences). You might also find
that your critical comments enjoy an even better reception from the authors if you
do let them know who is making them. If you are unsure, by all means do remain anonymous.
You can always, at any point in the future, change the setting of any given Report
to non-anonymous (from your <a href="{% url 'scipost:personal_page' %}">personal page</a>,
under the refereeing tab).
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Will you pay me to write a Report?</h4>
<p>
No. SciPost is not a money-making enterprise (neither for us, nor for you).
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>How long should it take me?</h4>
<p>
Say reading the paper takes one unit of time.
To do a proper job, you can then easily spend one more unit thinking about it,
perhaps one or two more trying to rederive some results and consulting further literature,
and then another writing your Report.
So to be proud of your work, 4-5 time units is a good indication
(but don't worry, nobody is clocking you).
</p>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="highlight">For authors</h2>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-6">
<h3>How to react to a Report?</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<h4>Be open to criticism, and read the report carefully</h4>
<p>
Remember that referees have a somewhat unrewarding task.
They do this job for your benefit, not their own.
You can rightfully expect them to treat your work with respect.
In return, you should give proper consideration to their comments and criticisms,
and do your best to address any of the points raised.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Submit an Author Reply</h4>
<p>
You can submit an Author Reply to a Report pertaining to a Submission for which you
are a recognized author (you can claim any such authorship from your
<a href="{% url 'scipost:personal_page' %}">personal page</a>).
Writing an Author Reply is recommended if there are specific points of a Report which you want to
respond to. You can mention changes you plan to implement in your manuscript which result
from this Report (though your list of changes can also wait for your resubmission letter).
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h4>Upon resubmission, link back to the Reports</h4>
<p>
Hopefully the Reports will have helped you improve your manuscript.
Before resubmitting, prepare a list of changes (which you can then paste in the appropriate
field of the resubmission form) in order for referees and editors to clearly understand
what has (or hasn't) changed in your paper.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
{% endblock content %}
submissions/urls.py
+ 3
− 0
View file @ 847dfd37
...@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ urlpatterns = [ ...@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ urlpatterns = [
url(r'^author_guidelines$', url(r'^author_guidelines$',
TemplateView.as_view(template_name='submissions/author_guidelines.html'), TemplateView.as_view(template_name='submissions/author_guidelines.html'),
name='author_guidelines'), name='author_guidelines'),
url(r'^refereeing_guidelines$',
TemplateView.as_view(template_name='submissions/refereeing_guidelines.html'),
name='refereeing_guidelines'),
url(r'^{regex}/$'.format(regex=SUBMISSIONS_NO_VN_REGEX), views.submission_detail_wo_vn_nr, url(r'^{regex}/$'.format(regex=SUBMISSIONS_NO_VN_REGEX), views.submission_detail_wo_vn_nr,
name='submission_wo_vn_nr'), name='submission_wo_vn_nr'),
url(r'^{regex}/$'.format(regex=SUBMISSIONS_COMPLETE_REGEX), url(r'^{regex}/$'.format(regex=SUBMISSIONS_COMPLETE_REGEX),
......
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment

SciPost Code Repository