Triaging Papers for PhDs

Simulation author – Audra Van Wart, PhD, Director of Education and Training at Virginia Tech and former associate scientific editor of Neuron.

Simulation Objective:

Assess the Value and Fit of a Paper for a Journal

Associated Simulation Library:

Science Sim

Background

Editors at scientific journals receive an abundance of paper submissions and must be able to quickly assess and critique the papers. In the triage process, editors aim to determine whether the paper is a fit for the journal’s scope, and whether the conclusions are generally supported by the data presented.

In editorial meetings, editors receive a list of abstracts and must make an initial assessment of each study’s scope and potential impact on the field. Following a more complete reading of the papers, those with the highest potential for publication are moved forward into the peer review process. This job simulation focuses on the editorial triage and critique process.

The Process

Papers submitted to a scientific journal will be assessed for suitability taking into account the scope and guidelines of the given journal.
Editors will then decide whether a manuscript will be sent out for peer-review or not. Professional editors may decide to consult academic editors, who are part of the editorial board of some journals and are experts in the specific field.
If the editors consider the work to be suitable for further consideration, they will identify experts on the field to anonymously peer-review the manuscript.
The editors will evaluate and consider the reviews. If need be, they may follow up with the reviewers or consult the editorial board before making a decision.

Resources

We suggest looking up the editorial criteria and process for your journal of choice. Here are examples to get you started.

Project SMART Goals

Self Reflection Guide

Informational Interview Guide

The Exercise

Critique an article from an editor’s perspective and prepare your summary and arguments for the editorial team meeting. Read an entire volume of your journal of choice. No need to read carefully, but focus on the abstract. Select the best and worst papers from the journal and write your critiques. For this exercise, you are an editorial intern and part of a team evaluating papers for publication. You will not respond to authors.

Task 1 - Define Selection Criteria

Step 1 from the process above. Choose a journal you’re interested in and read through the abstracts quickly. Identify the advance, or key information on which you will base your decision, and decide whether you would read the entire paper. Define the criteria on which you will make a decision on the best and worst paper from the journal.

Note: This task has been included as part of job interviews for editorial positions, and candidates are asked to come up with their own criteria. Ideally this task should take you no longer than one hour. Spend a maximum of two hours.

Task 2 - Critique

For this task, write your decision to consider the paper for review or not (or maybe) and write your critique based on the criteria you defined.

Task 3 - Determine Best and Worst

Using your critique from task 2, select a best and worst paper from the journal. Read the papers in 20 minutes or less and form your argument on whether each paper would be a good fit for the journal and audience and why.

Deliverables

Task 1

List of selection criteria

Task 2

The triage decision and critiques can be in paragraph or bullet form, as the prompt is that you will share your critique with the editorial team.

Task 3

Your critique of why the papers you selected were the worst and best

Additional Tasks

A scientific journal editor may also perform these tasks:

Triage and critique papers
Edit review pieces
Write layman’s terms abstracts or pieces for the journal’s blog or magazine
Attend conferences and disseminate the journal’s scope and policies
Social media outreach
Science outreach and communication