Reviewing a scientific manuscript - continued

Do’s
Your main focus should fall on aspects which you can judge better than anybody or than most. These are obvious mistakes as well as interpretations that you consider to be false or debatable. In other words, your main task is to assess the scientific soundness of the work. Take a taxonomic manuscript, for example: the manuscript has been entrusted to you because the editor knows (thinks?) that you are a fundi on the group in question. You are probably in a better position than anybody, or than most, to judge whether the nomenclature is sound, whether the keys will work, whether the synonyms are correct and in a logical sequence, whether the choice of outgroup is well founded, whether the cladograms are correctly interpreted, whether the illustrations are representative, and whether the distribution data make sense.

Secondly look for lapses in logic, for phrases with obscure meaning, for shortcomings and mistakes in organisation and presentation.

Only in the third place should you give some attention to lapses in style, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. And even here it is usually enough to make a general comment pointing out shortcomings. The technical editor of the journal (who has not worked on the manuscript yet) is probably better equipped than you for dealing with these issues.

“Adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication. In comments intended for the author’s eyes, present criticism dispassionately and avoid offensive remarks. Suggested modifications should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. In a separate letter to the editor you might want to distinguish between modifications considered essential and those judged merely desirable” (Day, 1979).

Inform the editor if you have assessed only certain aspects of the manuscript, or if you have left out certain parts, for example, Latin descriptions. You may ask the editor to send a manuscript back to you so that you can see whether the modifications and/or corrections you suggested have been done to your satisfaction.

When you are asked to review a long manuscript, such as a thesis or monograph, you may request the text to be made available to you in electronic form. This will facilitate your work considerably, especially if there is no complete index and when you are checking for consistency and duplication.

Don’ts
Do not spend much time on grammar, spelling and punctuation unless this is specifically requested by the editor.

Do not criticise ad hominem—directed against the author—focus your criticism on the manuscript.

Do not cite or otherwise use a manuscript before it has been published unless you have the explicit permission of both the editor and the author.

Do not discuss a manuscript with its author, because the editor and the other reviewer(s) may have ideas different to yours, yet the author may get the impression that your views agree with theirs.

In your comments meant to be seen by the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of the manuscript. Your comments in this regard must be made only to the editor who has the final word in the matter.

Tail-Light
Remember, feedback from you and other reviewers helps the authors to improve their work and to meet the expectations of the botanical world at large. How can they do this if nobody tells them? But remember too that practically no one enjoys learning that they are failing to meet expectations. Therefore, be objective in your criticism and don’t adopt a high-handed approach. Maybe you aren’t perfect either.

My sincere thanks for the contributions by participants of the workshop on reviewing held at the NBI (now SANBI) on 7 November 2001 and to the members of the Publication Section of the NBI who commented on the manuscript.

—by Dr Otto Leistner

SABONET News 7.1: 36

---

CUTTS, M. 1995. The plain English guide. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

DAY, R.A. 1979. How to write and publish a scientific paper. ISI Press, Philadelphia.

LEISTNER, O.A. 1997–1999. How to write articles for publication. SABONET News 2,2–4,2.

MABBERLEY, D.J. 1997. The plant-book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

OGILVY, D. 1987. The unpublished David Ogilvy. Sidgwick & Jackson, London.

STEARN, W.T. 1998. Botanical Latin. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Collins English Dictionary. 1999. Harper Collins Publishers.

The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. 1998. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. 1986. Clarendon Press, Oxford.