Scientific Publishing: 2. Peer Review

This is the second of a five-lecture Seminar on Scientific Publishing, presented by Manolis Antonoyiannakis at Columbia University (sponsored by IGERT Quantum Optics) in 2016-2017. The seminar aims to train and inform graduate students and junior researchers on matters pertaining to scientific publishing. Its five themes are: (1) writing a paper, (2) peer review, (3) citation analysis & performance metrics, (4) publication ethics, and (5) topics from the history & sociology of science publishing. 

Lecture 2: Peer Review

• Review process in a nutshell
• Presubmission inquiry
• Internal Review (by journal editors and/or editorial board)
• Rejection Without External Review
• Editors: Role & Challenges
• External review (by anonymous referees): What it is, how long it takes, what is fair to expect from editors and reviewers 
• Suggested/undesirable referees
• How do editors find referees for a paper?
• The 3R’s: “Revise, respond, and resubmit” 
• Dos and don’ts when arguing with editors/referees 
• Appealing a rejection to the Editorial Board/Editor-in-Chief 
• Deciding when to cut one’s losses and submit elsewhere
• Highlighting papers
• New models of peer review: open, double-blind, and post-publication peer review