Medical Research Evaluations in a journal:
It is critical to realize that when journal editors do Medical Research Evaluation, they are not simply evaluating whether the medical research is interesting or whether it advances knowledge in the field. In this discussion, we will be discussing the process of medical research evaluation and its challenges from the perspective of an editor.
Q1. Can you describe the process of selecting a suit reviewer?
For Medical Research Evaluation, the editors select reviewers based on their expertise in the paper’s subject matter. At the time of submission, authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers, which is extremely helpful to the editor. You should, however, ensure that the reviewers you choose are truly independent, i.e., not friends or close colleagues. It is obvious to suggest authors whose work you cite in your article or authors who have published on a similar topic. However, editors will not rely solely on your suggestions but also their contacts. The FindReviewers tool provided by publishers such as Elsevier and Springer is one of the most popular resources for editors. If editors cannot resolve a problem independently, they often seek assistance from the journal’s Editorial Board.
Q2. Is there anything that a reviewer looks for during the medical research evaluation process?
In order to do medical research evaluation, reviewers determine whether a paper is within the journal’s scope, whether the science is sound, and whether the paper meets the journal’s “conceptual novelty” standard. For example, it can be very useful for other researchers if you publish the melting point of a newly synthesized molecule. However, such research does not constitute conceptual novelty; a new method of determining melting points would qualify as conceptually novel.
During Medical Research Evaluation, the article reviewer’s priority at the manuscript text level is to ensure that the text is internally consistent. To clarify, I mean whether the method and results are consistent. Are the results and conclusion in agreement? There is a common weakness in papers that appear to have been written independently of one another. Cohesive papers are elevated to a whole new level. Are you familiar with the expression “cannot see the forest for the trees”? When writing a paper, authors tend to look at the forest rather than the trees. On the other hand, reviewers almost parachute into an article and can immediately identify any missing wood.
They also examine the title, abstract, and conclusion, as well as the references. It is not expected that they will serve as copy editors.
It may not be the responsibility of reviewers to detect plagiarism, fraud, and other ethical issues during their Medical Research Evaluation. However, in practice, they often do so. For example, most papers submitted to EES (Elsevier Editorial System) are now also automatically uploaded to CrossCheck, which uses iThenticate software to check for textual overlap with the rest of the published literature (“plagiarism”) back to the early 1990s. Fellow scientists may also discover plagiarism or fraud in published papers and notify the journal.
Q3. What is the reason for the delay in reviewing my medical paper sometimes?
The editor may have difficulty finding reviewers, either because the researchers they approach are too busy or because your field is quite niche. This makes the pool of possible reviewers very small. In other cases, the reviewer who initially agreed to review and Medical Research Evaluation does not deliver the review. So the editor must start over again. Remember that editors sometimes have to invite ten reviewers to obtain two usable Reviewer Reports.
Q4. My native language is not English. Is that likely to affect my chances of publication success?
“Language” remains your responsibility as the author. If there are grammatical errors in your paper, but the editor sees high-quality scientific content, then your paper will still be considered for review. However, you may need to address the language later in the process.
Q5. The paper I submitted should not have been rejected. Is there anything I can do?
The editors and reviewers are human and can make mistakes, but manuscripts are not rejected without reason. If your paper has been rejected on the borderline, at least three sets of eyes (the editor and two reviewers) have seen it.
Moreover, there has been a convergence of opinion. A reviewer typically spends four hours reviewing your paper and eight hours free expert consultation. There is a problem with authors being too close to their text – it is their child. Despite this, you must be able to take a step back from the situation.
Alternatively, if you believe your paper should have been accepted, you may appeal to the editor. Most of the time, however, authors cannot emotionally accept their rejection for various reasons. Remember not to be personal in your comments if you write back to the editor – ensure that your rebuttal is polite, scientific, and based on facts.
Q6. Is it possible to resubmit my medical manuscript to a journal for another Medical Research Evaluation after rejection?
Generally, I would recommend against doing so; otherwise, the editor would have invited you to resubmit the letter of non-acceptance. Usually, editors carefully review medical research. If editors had felt that revision would have been beneficial to your paper, they would have mentioned it at the time of submission. It is not worth the effort unless you have made substantial changes to your submission.
Q7. Is it possible to submit that rejected medical manuscript to another journal in the same field?
After a journal and your manuscript conducted a medical research evaluation was ultimately rejected, you may do whatever you wish. In order to begin another Medical Research Evaluation, you may submit your manuscript to another journal. It would help if you took advantage of the reviewers’ comments, who spent a great deal of time reading your manuscript during the medical research evaluation process. Some authors send their papers to other journals without making any changes, which is not wise. The new editor may send your paper to the same reviewers. These reviewers will not be amused if they find that you have not made any of the changes, they considered necessary. Therefore, you should examine why your paper was rejected and address those issues before resubmitting. You can check essentials before submitting to the next journal for more information.
Q8. Can the editor provide me with the names of the researchers who did the Medical Research Evaluation?
There is no need to identify the reviewers. Occasionally, authors have expressed their desire to have the reviewer listed as a co-author after the reviewer made significant improvements to their paper. Afterward, the editor may approach the reviewer to determine whether he or she is willing to become acquainted with the authors.
Q9. Is the reviewer’s letter to the editor not shared with the author?
Well, the reviewers must be able to communicate their recommendations to the editor. For example, consider the case where two reviewers make different recommendations following careful medical research evaluation. Of course, the editor makes the final decision in this scenario. Even so, it is not helpful if the tone of the confidential remarks differs from that of the feedback contained in the Reviewer Report.
Keywords: Medical research evaluation, medical paper, medical manuscript
References: