Archive for January, 2011

Please click the picture below to view a larger poster.
 It was one of those days when an eminent professor of my interested areas came from a faraway university and gave a revealing talk, and there were many at the lecture. The Q&A session was heated but very friendly and interesting. The dinner was sumptuous and reflected the festive mood of the Chinese New Year. The chatting over the dinner was of good humour, among the guest professor and local peers who were usually too busy to see one another often. Insider’s information from Johan on the journal <Linguistics> was extremely helpful. We digested and cogitated and did not forget to take photos, of us all, including the name tags and the banquet menu. Will chase for the photos, to be released here soon, hopefully!

Read Full Post »


What is a DOI?

DOI = Document Object Identifier
A DOI identifies an individual article (like a serial number) such that a permanent URL can be created.
Most major publishers have started associating DOI’s with articles and have started to show the DOI in abstracting and indexing databases (like Compendex) as well as on the article abstracts themselves.
Here’s what one looks like:
The first part before the / is the publisher portion of the number. This one points to Elsevier. The second part points to the journal and article specifically.
To use a DOI to create a permanent, persistent link to an article, see: Linking to Articles Online
To learn more about DOIs, see: http://www.doi.org

Read Full Post »

Citation and DOI

Linking to Articles Online

This page is to help you create persistent links to online articles rather than posting full text. Many publishers do not allow posting of their electronic content without permission to the public portion of OCW, personal web pages, or any other web site which is accessible beyond MIT.
Note: Harvard Business Review has a more restrictive policy about linking than other journals.
If you want to have a scanned article available for a class please see E-reserves.

Options for creating persistent links to articles:

  1. Use a DOI
  2. Use Publisher-Produced persistent URLs
  3. Use the SFX FullText Finder

Option 1: Use a DOI (What is a DOI?)

Many articles now have DOIs associated with them that can be found on publishers’ web sites:

Option 2: Use Publisher-Produced persistent URLs

Many publishers or full text databases will provide persistent URLs to their content.

  • The persistent URL of the example above from Proquest is:


  • Make a persistent URL that will work for MIT users when off-campus by appending the persistent URL to the MIT Libraries’ proxy string: http://libproxy.mit.edu/login?url=

This example:

Option 3: Use the SFX FullText Finder

The SFX FullText Finder not only finds full text that MIT has access to, but will also create an OpenURL that can provide a persistent link to the SFX menu for the cited item, which will often include a link to the full text. This OpenURL will work from off-campus, assuming that the user has MIT web certificates.
1. Enter the citation information into the SFX FullText Finder.

2. Once the correct item is found with an online link to the full text, click on “Create a persistent link” in the SFX menu, which will provide the OpenURL along with further instructions.

Read Full Post »

Frequently Asked Questions

On receiving a request to review
Why should I review?
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Reviewing papers is part of belonging to the scientific community. Being sent a paper to review allows you a “sneak preview” into some research in your specific interest area or a closely allied field. It allows you to have some impact on what is being published in your discipline. For more experienced scientists, it is a way of mentoring other scientists. For younger researchers, it is a way to learn more about your discipline, and when you are asked to review a paper, it is an acknowledgment of your importance in the community of scientists. Elsevier shares the commonly held view that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Back to top

Are there consequences for refusing to review a paper?

No. However, please inform your editor by return e-mail if you are not able to complete the review.
Back to top

What if I feel there is a conflict of interest in my commenting on the research?

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In such a case a reviewer should contact the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process for that particular paper.
Back to top

What if the language, grammar or structure of the paper is very bad?
Elsevier encourages authors to polish their manuscript as much as possible before submission. We also work with our editors to try to ensure that papers with very poor English are not sent to reviewers. If, however, a paper with poor English has made it through the screening process, and if the errors make the article extremely difficult (or impossible) to understand, the paper should be returned to the editor with the request that the author have the material edited for content before re-submitting it for peer review.
Back to top

What if the paper does not follow the journal’s layout, format and general style?
Authors are required to adhere to the journal’s Guide for Authors, which includes manuscript presentation. If the difference is extreme and the editor has not mentioned this issue in the request to review, you may wish to contact your editor to discuss it. Otherwise, you should note this in your review. If the paper is otherwise good, the editor may choose to overlook the formatting issues (for example, if the author comes from outside the discipline but has something valuable to convey to the readers of this journal). Other times, editors may ask the author to restructure the paper before publication.
Back to top

What if I don’t feel qualified to review the research?
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should notify the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process. This should be done as soon as possible by return email.
Back to top

Is the review process anonymous?                        
Different journals have different approaches: some journals use a single blind reviewing process, some use a double blindsystem, and still others have an open approach. Different approaches are appropriate for different subject areas, and also depend upon the culture of the discipline. You should contact your editor if you have any further questions about the process employed by the journal for which you are reviewing.
Back to top

Completing the review
How long do I have to complete the review? Is there a deadline? What if I’m running late?
Deadlines for reviews vary per journal. The editors will provide information on deadline expectations with the review request.
Editors appreciate being informed that you have received their request within a day or two and are able to complete the review. If you feel the review will take you longer to complete than normal, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. The editor may ask you to recommend an alternate reviewer, or may be willing to wait a little longer (e.g., if the paper is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general guideline, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the timeframe requested, you should decline to review the paper. It is important that you keep the editor informed if the review is taking longer than expected.
Back to top

Who can I ask for help if I need it?
If you have queries relating to the content of the paper, please contact the journal editor or the editorial office. For technical issues relating to our submission and review system, EES, Elsevier has a reviewers’ helpdesk that can be contacted by e-mail: support@elsevier.com or by telephone: The Americas: +1 888 834 7287 (toll free for US & Canadian customers), Asia + Pacific: + 81 3 5561 5032, Europe & all other areas: + 353 61 709 190.
Back to top

Can I request the input of my colleagues?

Papers sent to you for review are confidential; however, requesting the opinion of a single colleague may be appropriate in some circumstances. Please consult your editor about this.
Back to top

Can I refer the review to a post-graduate student?
Check with your editor. In general, if you feel the student is suitably qualified, this will be acceptable. If the review is referred to the student, he or she should communicate directly with the editor.
Back to top

What if I have issues with the research from an ethical perspective?

This is a vital part of the referee’s remit; you should contact the editor without delay to discuss any concerns.
Back to top

I feel I have seen this paper (or a large part of it) elsewhere before – what should I do?
Any claim that an observation, derivation or argument has been previously published should be accompanied by a relevant citation. A reviewer should call the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Back to top

Will I have to look at second and subsequent drafts of this paper?    
Usually, no. In some cases, if you have called for substantial changes or additions, the editor may send a revised copy of the paper for you to check, to ensure that the changes made meet your expectations. In some cases you may be asked to also look at a third submission of a paper.
Back to top

Will I receive any incentives or acknowledgments for the reviewing I do?
  • Our reviewers receive 30 days of access to Scopus (External linkhttp://info.scopus.com/overview/what/). Later this year, reviewers will have access to the full text of articles referenced in the paper they are reviewing via EES. This means that you will be able to click on the references listed in the manuscript and access the full text article. 
  • Some journals print a list of reviewers who contributed to the journal, once per year.
  • A limited number of journals are able to provide token rewards to their reviewers, such as book vouchers.
  • We encourage our editors to provide feedback to their reviewers so that they are informed of the outcome of their reviews.

Back to top

Should my review be addressed to the author(s) or the editor(s)?
Precise instructions on how to format your review will be provided to you by your editor via Elsevier’s online submission system.
Back to top

Will the author(s) see my comments?

The authors will only see the comments you have made that are specific to the author; sometimes the editor will edit them.
Back to top

What happens if my review conflicts with that of another reviewer?
The final decision of whether to accept or reject a particular manuscript lies with the editor. The editor will weigh both views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
Back to top

Can I see other reviewers’ comments on the paper?
This is possible in principle via EES, although not all editors have opted to have this feature activated for their journal. If your journal has not activated this feature, you may contact the editor if you wish to have feedback on your review or on whether the paper was accepted or rejected.
Back to top

Who makes the ultimate decision about whether a paper is accepted or rejected?

The journal’s editor. Elsevier plays no part in this decision.
Back to top

Will I be notified whether the paper was accepted or rejected?

This depends on the editor. We acknowledge that feedback is valuable for reviewers. Elsevier’s submission system, EES, allows reviewers to be notified of the outcome of papers they have reviewed. It is left to the editor’s discretion of whether this function is activated for any given journal. If this functionality is not activated for your journal, you may contact the editor if you wish to know whether the paper was accepted or rejected.
Back to top

Can I distribute the paper to students or colleagues, or use its findings for training and research purposes?
No. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorised by the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Back to top

Read Full Post »


Here we provide some information about peer review in general, its history, and the different forms it takes, as well as some advice on how to write a good review.
One of the largest ever international surveys of authors and reviewers: the External linkPeer Review Survey 2009 was conducted by Sense About Science. Preliminary findings were presented at the British Science Festival at Surrey University, UK on September 8, 2009.
This flowchart shows the steps involved in the peer review process.
A brief guide to dealing with External linkstatistics for reviewers (PDF)
Advice from editors to reviewers
Elsevier policies relevant to peer review
The history of peer review
Interesting links and web resources

Back to top
Types of peer review
There are, essentially, three varieties of peer review. Each type carries with it some clear advantages, as well as some disadvantages:
Single Blind Review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is, by far, the most common type.

Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions free from influence by the author.

Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer the opportunity to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author’s work.

Double Blind Review

Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.

Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work.

Articles written by ‘prestigious’ or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation.

It is uncertain whether a paper can ever truly be ‘blind’ – especially in specialty ‘niche’ areas. Reviewers can often identify the author through the paper’s style, subject matter or self-citation.

Open Review

Reviewer and author are known to each other.

Some scientists feel this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from drawing upon their own ‘agenda’ and encourage open, honest reviewing.

Others argue the opposite view. They see open review as a less honest process in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For example, junior reviewers may hesitate to criticize more esteemed authors for fear of damaging their prospects. Independent studies tend to support this.  

Read Full Post »