Executive Editor’s message: Remembering and Giving Thanks (Nov 2018)
Once again, I really enjoyed reading the manuscript contributions that have formed the scientific component of this issue of the journal. I hope you also enjoy reading this edition of the Journal of Swine Health and Production (JSHAP). The papers and messages within this issue are the result of a major team effort that bring applied and diverse topics to our swine information library. As many of you know, the November-December issue of JSHAP publishes a list of all the reviewers who have graciously reviewed manuscripts for the journal over the previous year. I invite you to turn to that list and recognize all those individuals who have volunteered their time and expertise to provide a peer-review. If you see one of these peer-reviewers in your daily travels or at a conference, please pass on a thank-you.
I would personally like to thank all the peer-reviewers for their hard work and contributions to the journal over the past year. Thank you!
In some of my previous messages I have described the peer-review process for JSHAP.1 I wanted to revisit this topic so that we remember how many people are involved in the process and the time commitment required. The November-December issue is also a timely issue for giving thanks and for remembering, as many of us celebrate Thanksgiving, Remembrance Day, Veterans Day, and many other significant holidays.
The peer-review process of scientific manuscripts can be quite variable from journal to journal. Regardless of the review system in place, the process takes a considerable amount of time and hard work. As a starting point to gaining an appreciation for the time commitment in the length of the process, I ask you to consider the two dates published on the online version of a manuscript: the received date and the accepted date (Figure 1). The received dates published in JSHAP reflects the date the manuscript is submitted to the journal office and the accepted dates represent the date of conditional acceptance for publication. You will see that the time frame between these two dates varies greatly from manuscript to manuscript.
Figure 1. Received and Accepted dates are published for each manuscript in the Journal of Swine Health and Production.
Why do we keep track and publish this information? There are multiple reasons, but one important reason from an administration standpoint is to help the journal monitor the length of time a manuscript takes to go through the review and editing process. We like to monitor this information and see if there are ways or areas where we can streamline the process.
The length of time from submission to acceptance and then publication can depend on many things and it is not unusual for JSHAP to experience delays in the review process. It is a coordinated effort to keep things moving while balancing author and reviewer schedules, eg, changes in personal schedules and reviewer availability during the process. Not to mention the journal’s timelines and deadlines, international time zones delaying communications, holidays, etc. I think you get the idea. For all these reasons, JSHAP does not have a guaranteed publication timeline as there are many factors out of our direct control. However, we are sensitive to timely publication and strive to keep timelines reasonable. Karen Richardson, our publications manager, looks after keeping track of the manuscripts, timelines, and people.
To elaborate further, the specific review process begins with me, the executive editor. I read the manuscript and decide if it is within the scope of the journal. If the manuscript is out of the journal’s scope, it is returned to the author and not accepted for a full peer-review. Additionally, manuscripts are returned to the author for revision if they have not followed the author guidelines, further delaying the review process. Two areas where authors most often fail to follow the guidelines is with providing information regarding animal use and general formatting. These steps and attention to detail are important so that we don’t overwhelm our reviewers with requests to review poorly presented manuscripts or manuscripts that do not suit the journal.
Once the manuscript is accepted for review, I request one of the members of the editorial board to act as a lead reviewer. This is a critical component of the review process as the lead reviewer will guide the review process for the individual manuscript from here and help to narrow down the reviewer search for the submission. Typically, 2 or 3 additional reviewers are obtained for each manuscript and the reviewers are given 3 to 4 weeks to return their reviews. The work of the editorial board members brings a wealth of expertise to the review process, the journal, and the body of published scientific literature in general.
I would like to personally thank all the lead reviewers, past and present, for their contributions to the journal. Thank you!
Once the reviews are complete and submitted to the journal office, the lead reviewer will take all the reviews into consideration and make a publication recommendation. At this point, I review the publication recommendation and make the decision to conditionally accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript. If revisions are requested, the manuscript is returned to the author and they are given 3 weeks to respond. Once the revised manuscript is returned to the journal office, it is sent back to the reviewers for re-consideration. This is the period where a manuscript can accumulate quite a bit of time and skew the distribution of the time to acceptance statistic. Depending on any further revisions required, the manuscript may be conditionally accepted at this time, returned for further revisions, or rejected.
Once the manuscript is conditionally accepted it is forwarded to Sherrie Webb, our associate editor. Any changes usually required at this point are corrections in grammar, punctuation, format, and copy-editing concerns that the associate editor manages. However, some minor revisions or requests for clarification from reviewers may also need to be addressed at this point. Once this phase is completed, the manuscript is converted into an author proof by Tina Smith, our graphic designer, and returned to the author for final proofreading. Once the author accepts the final proof, the review process is finished. Phew!
As you can see, the process is thorough and lengthy and requires the efforts of many critical people and opinions in the process.
It seems that the epidemic of ‘busy schedules’ continues to escalate with many of us experiencing increased work demands, and it perhaps seems to be approaching a pandemic phase. I recognize it is often difficult to take on additional work and I hope you can now remember that reviewing a paper thoroughly is a big job requiring the time of many people. At the time of writing this message the journal has received 36 manuscript submissions in 2018 and we still have many weeks left in the year. While this is nice to report healthy submission rates for the journal, it also means active recruiting of peer-reviewers remains challenging. Once again, thank you to those who take on extra work during this epidemic of busy schedules. Additionally, in a previous message I put out a call for “JSHAP’s Most Wanted.”2 We always need peer-reviewers! If you would like to be on JSHAP’s “Most Wanted List” as a willing peer-reviewer, please use the following link to complete the short survey (5 to 10 minutes): uoguelph.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3q6Wc4gJKegOGGh.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed, and continues to contribute, considerable amounts of time and effort to this process for JSHAP.
Terri O’Sullivan, DVM, PhD
Executive Editor
References
1. O’Sullivan, T. The peer-review process. J Swine Health Prod. 2013;21(6):299.
2. O’Sullivan, T. JSHAP’s Most Wanted! J Swine Health Prod. 2017;25(6):289.