Review process 审稿流程

　　Professional editors

　　Staff editors & Board of Reviewing Editors- review or reject?

　　External in-depth review

　　Reject, revise, accept

　　Assist authors communicate research

　　Academic editors

　　Review or reject?

　　Can serve as reviewers or send for external in-depth review

　　Reject, revise, accept

　　Science期刊出版模式

　　Science期刊编辑的要求和职责

　　Have a PhD + postdoc in area of expertise

　　Evaluate manuscript submissions

　　Facilitate the peer review process

　　Decide what to publish, what to reject

　　Travel to meetings/lab visits

　　Commission reviews, plan special issues

　　Liaise with other departments at Science/AAAS

　　How do we decide which papers get sent for in-depth review? 如何决定送审

　　Board of Reviewing Editors

　　>100 practicing scientists

　　Help us assess which papers should be sent for in-depth review

　　Assess significance of the work

　　Suggest reviewers

　　Can act as mediators during later stages of review

　　Why are papers rejected without review?来稿直接被拒的原因

　　Typical reasons for rejection at this stage:

　　Question addressed in not of broad interest and therefore belongs in a specialty journal

　　Question addressed is interesting, but data do not support conclusions

　　Unconvincing data, technical flaws (more of a problem after review)

　　Too descriptive

　　How do editors select reviewers?编辑如何选择审稿人

　　Board suggestions

　　Database records

　　Web/literature searches

　　Deciphering suggested/excluded lists from authors

　　Variety of experience levels, backgrounds, locations, institutions, etc.

　　What is asked of reviewers?对审稿人的要求

　　Critique the quality of experiments and validity of interpretation in a constructive manner

　　Distinguish from related publications or prior work

　　Discuss the paper’s significance and likely impact:

　　        -In its own field

　　        -In a broader context

　　Accept or Reject? 过？不过？

　　Common reasons to reject after review:

　　Incremental advance over previous work—better for a specialty journal

　　Data do not fully support the conclusions

　　Flawed analysis

　　Is part of an ongoing debate, but does not resolve it