Reviewing scientific manuscripts
(including hints for authors)

Nothing done by a representative of the species Homo sapiens is ever perfect. In other words: everything done by human hand can be improved. In the present context the question then arises: how can I improve the manuscript I have just written? The obvious answer: ask your colleagues, your peers, what they think of it. Because two heads are better than one—at least so they say—and more than two presumably even better. And that’s what reviewing or refereeing of manuscripts is all about.

What is a Reviewer or Referee?
In the present context a reviewer or referee is a person who provides a critical assessment of a scientific manuscript, paper, or book. You may compare reviewers to constitutional monarchs. They have “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn”. And as David Ogilvy (1987), from whom I got this idea, added: Both may say “thank you for according me those rights”.

What is an Editor?
An editor is a person in charge of the editing and often the policy of a journal or newspaper. Most of the bigger scientific journals, such as Bothalia, have two kinds of editors: a scientific editor and a technical or managing editor. The scientific editor is a scientist of good standing in the discipline covered by the journal. The main function of the editor is to ensure that the journal publishes only papers of high, preferably international, scientific standard. This is the reason why manuscripts submitted to a journal are sent to reviewers on whom the editor can rely for sound advice. The scientific editor deals with any queries you may have about the assessment of your manuscript, and finally decides whether it is accepted or rejected. The technical editor is responsible for checking the style of writing and the language, for the clerical and administrative detail in the review process, and for the later events that convert accepted manuscripts into published papers. When problems arise at the proof or publication stage, you should contact the technical editor. Let me arouse in you a little sympathy for the editors of this world with a quote from Robert Day (1979), who provided valuable information and inspiration for the present account: “Editors and managing editors have impossible jobs. What makes their work impossible is the attitude of authors”. This attitude is well expressed by Earl H. Wood of the Mayo Clinic: “I expect the editor to accept all my papers, accept them as they are submitted, and publish them promptly. I also expect him to scrutinize all other papers with the utmost care, especially those of my competitors”. To continue the slightly adapted quote from Day (1979): “An editor who pleases everybody is neither standing nor sitting, but lying peacefully, surrounded by solemn-looking people and lots of flowers”. Reviewers are in a less vulnerable position. First, they are usually anonymous—most editors go to great lengths to keep their identity a secret from the authors—and second, they are not responsible for the final decisions regarding the publication of a manuscript.

From Manuscript to Publication
Before the bright idea in the head of a scientist emerges as a publication for all the world to see, it usually goes through six stages of development.

1 Writing
You, the scientist, armed with the appropriate knowledge, feel the urge, or are pressurised by your boss, to make this knowledge known to the world. So, you sit down and write.

2 Reviewing by peers
The first people to comment on your manuscript, or at least on ideas incor-porated therein, are often your colleagues. Once satisfied with the result, you send your manuscript to a scientific journal with the request to publish it. The editor of the journal will look at it and send it to reviewers for their assessment.

3 Author’s response to editor’s and reviewers’ comments
When the editor returns the manuscript, you may not agree with all the comments made and the alterations suggested. You should then contact the scientific editor and put your point of view on each controversial issue as clearly, succinctly, and objectively as possible, complete with your reasons for disagreeing with the reviewer(s). Never say you disagree with the editor, especially if you want to publish further manuscripts in the same journal.

4 Processing the manuscript for publication
When editor and author both agree that the manuscript is suitable for publication, usually as modified in the light of peer opinion, it is brought into final shape for printing by the editorial staff of the journal.

5 Printing and binding
Usually undertaken by a printing house under the close scrutiny of the editorial staff of the journal. How to Review a Scientific Manuscript (Including Hints for Authors)

6 Distribution
The completed journal containing your contribution is made available to the user. And only when it has reached that stage can your work be referred to as a scientific paper or article.