Archives: Questions

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Jing Jin, East China University of Science and Technology, China

For Dr Jing Jin it is an honour to be named Reviewer of the Year. Dr Jing feels it is his duty to contribute to the Journal of Neural Engineering and is keen to widen its sphere of influence. The published articles are of high quality, and the journal provides scientists with vital access to significant and relevant research.

When reviewing manuscripts, Dr Jing wants to see new findings, novel ideas and innovative techniques. He values articles that clearly contribute to their field of research, benefiting peers by shedding light on a particular question and enabling them to follow new lines of enquiry. It is therefore important that researchers demonstrate knowledge and present well thought out theories and methodologies.

Dr Jing is particularly excited by research that translates into practice or has real-world applications, citing Filter bank canonical correlation analysis for implementing a high-speed SSVEP-based brain–computer interface as one such paper that has recently captured his imagination.

As a reviewer, Dr Jing recognizes the importance of patience and advises others to be methodical in their approach to reviewing, knowing that if a manuscript is poorly written or contains grammatical and spelling errors, it is unlikely to be selected as a featured article even if the research itself is laudable. Dr Jing therefore encourages readers to vote for featured papers, in order to widen the influence of journals such as the Journal of Neural Engineering.

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Zoltan Fekete, Institute for Technical Physics & Material Science, Centre for Energy Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

A bioengineer, Dr Zoltan Fekete finds high-quality review articles useful for his own work. His research interest lies in the micro- and nanofabrication of implantable systems for neuroscience applications; and it is essential for Dr Fekete to keep up with advances in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).

Seeking to discover new approaches in the design of specific cell–device interfaces, he is especially interested in papers on novel sensing principles, fabrication schemes and biological sensor testing.

Dr Fekete is a regular reviewer and finds it particularly satisfying when authors are happier with their proposed manuscript after it has been revised. His approach to the process is to first identify the paper’s research highlights. Authors are generally looking to add novel ideas or discoveries to current literature, he says, and by focusing on the research results, reviewers might be more motivated to help present the work more clearly.

As for the peer review process itself, Dr Fekete would like to see the reviewer database regularly maintained so that editors have ready access to competent and appropriate reviewers.

Dr Fekete feels honoured to have been selected for this award. For him, it signals an important milestone and could pave the way for reviewers to become members of editorial boards, should they wish to do so in the long-term.

• Article publication charges at IOP Publishing
• APC cost breakdown
• Related APC information

Article publication charges at IOP Publishing

IOP Publishing publishes scientific journals that foster specialist research communities, validate research findings, and surface the most relevant scientific knowledge to interested audiences around the world. We are dedicated to making universal open access to the research we publish a reality. Our services help ensure the discoverability, impact, speed and quality of research.

The costs associated with high-quality open access publishing in IOP Publishing’s journals are covered by article publication charges (APCs). These can be paid by organisations, funders or researchers. In some cases, the cost of an APC is sponsored in full or in part by IOP Publishing or one of our society partners. APCs are listed on each journal website and included in the full price list below. Where APCs apply, they are only charged once an article has been accepted for publication. There is no charge if an article is rejected (before or after peer review), and there are no submission fees.

Prices are listed in three different currencies and are exclusive of any local taxes. You can download the most current price list.

For further information about APCs, including available discounts and waivers, please visit our paying for open access page.

For details of APCs for journals published on behalf of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), please visit the AAS article charges and copyright page.

Transformative and institutional open access agreements

IOP has established agreements to enable authors from a variety of institutions to publish on an open access basis at no cost to themselves. Further details about these agreements can be found on our transformative agreement hub.

Use IOPP Journal Finder to see if you might be covered by a transformative agreement.

Go to IOPP Journal Finder

APC cost breakdown

The publication charges for open access publishing enable us to provide services that meet the highest scientific and ethical standards, foster collaboration and communication between research communities, deliver fast editorial decisions and high impact for our authors, and ensure secure and trusted stewardship of the scholarly record over the long term.

Different journals may charge different APC rates, with the variances determined by several factors, including:

• Rejection rates: the proportion of articles reviewed that are not ultimately accepted for publication.
• Additional or customised editorial evaluation requirements.
• The amount of community-building and editorial development work undertaken by journal staff.
• Average levels of article language editing, formatting and structuring required.
• Frequency and intensity of article marketing and promotion.

The average APC paid for publication in an IOP Publishing journal breaks down as follows:

This breakdown illustrates that the majority of each APC contributes towards high quality peer review and community development. These are areas where IOP Publishing differs from many other scientific publishers. The editorial planning, the commissioning of content, the running of associated community events and the management of peer review are all undertaken by our in-house staff rather than by volunteer external academics. This approach requires us to invest more heavily to hire editorial professionals but significantly reduces the burden placed on the research community in the operation of scholarly communications and allows practicing scientists to spend maximum time on their research.

We are committed to open physics. This means that when researchers publish in our journals, they can be assured we are working to increase access, transparency and inclusivity in scientific communications.

IOP Publishing is a wholly owned subsidiary of the charity and not-for-profit Institute of Physics, one of the world’s oldest scholarly societies. 100% of any financial surplus generated from our activities is passed to the Institute of Physics, which uses this surplus to directly support the scientific community. Current programmes at the Institute of Physics include, but are not limited to, developing global scientific capability, improving access to physics education and training, influencing public dialogue and government policy to support the scientific community, and supporting diversity in science.

Related APC information

• How these services fit into the lifecycle of an article
• APC refund policy
• Policy on adjusting subscription prices to reflect open access publishing

Reviewer of the Year: Professor Massimo Corradi, Universita degli Studi di Parma, Italy

Massimo Corradi is a professor at the University of Parma, Italy, whose interest lies in respiratory medicine. The articles Professor Corradi reviews for the Journal of Breath Research resonate with him because he has a strong background in this field of research. His latest National Institutes of Health research project was entitled ‘Metals in exhaled breath condensate as COPD biomarkers’.

It comes as no surprise, then, that on reviewing papers for this journal, Professor Corradi looks for scientific appeal, novel research and rigorous methodology. An article that struck a chord with him sought to examine the use of exhaled breath analysis to detect drug abuse: Detection of drugs of abuse in exhaled breath using a device for rapid collection: comparison with plasma, urine and self-reporting in 47 drug users.

As a reviewer, Professor Corradi is particularly interested in the science, finding satisfaction in reading suggestions from other reviewers that mirror or complement his own. He therefore urges first-time reviewers to be scientifically rigorous, and to be honest when providing feedback on manuscripts.

For his part, Professor Corradi would like to see the names of authors removed from papers while undergoing peer review to ensure complete impartiality. He takes the process seriously, which is why the Reviewer of the Year award is important, he says; it recognizes the hard work, effort and time reviewers put into the task.

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Jens Flemming, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany

A modest reviewer, Dr Jens Flemming wonders why he has received the Reviewer of the Year 2016 award, considering it his responsibility as a scientist to evaluate the results of his colleagues. An Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Mathematics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany, he enjoys being forced—at least sometimes—to think about topics outside of the realm of his research.

When reviewing, Dr Flemming examines the proofs, looks out for ambiguity and assesses whether the study results are truly new. He also checks for typos and grammatical errors to help authors present their research in the best possible light.

Being party to the most recent developments in inverse problems is one of the most rewarding aspects of reviewing for Dr Flemming, who identified an article entitled Flexible sparse regularization as an interesting read. In it, the authors introduce flexible sparse regularization by varying exponents, as well as the corresponding functional analysis framework.

Offering sound advice to those reviewing for the first time, Dr Flemming points out that it is not safe to assume that experienced scientists make few or no mistakes. Adhere to reason and not to authors’ names, he urges.

Commenting on Inverse Problems’ peer review process overall, Dr Flemming judges it to have become well organized over the last few years. He likes reading other reviewers’ reports once the decision whether to publish the article is made, viewing it as an opportunity to calibrate his ratings for future reviews.

Reviewer of the Year: MrEnrico Sowade, TU Chemnitz, Germany

A scientist working in the sphere of flexible and printed electronics, Mr Enrico Sowade is still as fascinated with the subject as he was when he first began researching it more than six years ago. He describes it as a fairly new field that requires interdisciplinary approaches, and he is therefore keen to promote and support Flexible and Printed Electronics.

Mr Sowade is interested in liquid deposition and printing technologies—especially inkjet printing. Flexible and printed electronics will have strong commercial applications in the future, he says. There are few international journals devoted to this field. However, the basic and applied research published in these journals is an important driver for commercialization and technology maturity in flexible and printed electronics.

When reviewing, Mr Sowade looks for a storyline, accuracy and relevant images. He pays attention to the experimental designs and results, drawing on knowledge obtained from his own research and that of others to ascertain the paper’s novelty. For Mr Sowade, the most rewarding aspect of refereeing is the opportunity it provides him to learn more about his field; for example, one article that recently captured his imagination investigated gravure-printed electronics: Gravure-printed electronics: recent progress in tooling development, understanding of printing physics, and realization of printed devices.

Mr Sowade feels honoured to have been selected for the Reviewer of the Year award. He believes that reviewers should be recognized for what can be a time-consuming task. According to Mr Sowade, there are not enough available reviewers. Therefore, rewarding their efforts helps to encourage more scientists to undertake this service.

Reviewer of the Year: Professor Carl Mungan, US Naval Academy, United States

Despite winning the Reviewer of the Year Award, Professor Carl Mungan considers himself to be an ordinary faculty member doing his job. He reviews for the European Journal of Physics (EJP) as a service to the greater community of physics educators and to improve the final articles published by the journal.

Professor Mungan stands out, however, because he is not afraid to be honest in his approach to manuscripts. His advice to first-time reviewers is to make bold suggestions, to be specific and to provide examples of how the research could be presented, rather than simply pointing out errors, inaccuracies or ambiguous wording. He believes reviewers should do their best to quickly reply to authors, who are eagerly awaiting a response.

When reviewing, Professor Mungan looks for papers that have a cogent storyline, would be of reasonable, general interest to physics educators, and are technically correct. An article that particularly fascinated him was: The young centre of the Earth, having been struck by the idea that the centre of the Earth is a few years younger than the surface of the Earth due to gravitational time dilation.

Professor Mungan is gratified when he is able to make suggestions to an article that has good ideas but is poorly written. One suggestion he would have for EJP’s peer review process would be to champion concise manuscripts, so that novel or interesting content does not become lost in lengthy papers.

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Shannan Sweet, Cornell University, United States

Having had many manuscripts reviewed by others, Dr Shannan Sweet appreciates the time and effort reviewers put in to ensure the research is well presented and comprehensible. For Dr Sweet, refereeing for Environmental Research Letters (ERL) is a way to ‘pay it forward’ and thank all the reviewers who provided her with ‘life-changing’, considered advice.

Dr Sweet values articles that are unique and believable, esteeming quality over quantity and readability over esoteric, ‘intelligent-sounding’ notions. It is important to her that ideas flow and that the author demonstrates advanced subject knowledge. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming caught Dr Sweet’s attention because of its catchy title and political relevance.

According to Dr Sweet, the benefits of reviewing for ERL are manifold. Not only is it a reputable and broad environmental science journal, reading papers before they have been published means she is one of a select few to hear about an exciting discovery before it is released into the world, and she encourages others to peer review. While her first review took a long time, she has become more adept over time and advises first-time reviewers to read the manuscript in full before looking for small, grammatical errors and then appraising the research as a whole.

The peer review process is vital, Dr Sweet says, because wording and results can easily be misinterpreted without an outside perspective. She is delighted to be named Reviewer of the Year; the award recognizes the importance of this role, which all researchers should endeavour to undertake.

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Bernard Kelly, University of Maryland, Baltimore County & NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, United States

Classical and Quantum Gravity complements Dr Bernard Kelly’s line of work—computational gravity. As such, he enjoys going into the nitty-gritty details of a paper he might otherwise have only looked at superficially. He also finds it rewarding to see a second draft come back significantly cleaner than the original.

The majority of papers Dr Kelly reviews contain a good amount of ‘honest physics work’, he says, but if the authors cannot be clear about what they did, and why they did it, then the manuscript will need significant revision. In his experience, papers written by committees tend to be unfocused, containing more inconsistencies in style and notation from section to section.

Dr Kelly encourages first-time reviewers to be confident in their grasp of the material. If there is an unsupported statement, then they should point it out and not assume that it is due to their lack of knowledge. Very often, the authors have left out vital steps/references or made a minor mathematical mistake. More rarely, it is a sign of a real problem with their data or analysis.

Peer review is time-intensive and Dr Kelly is pleased that reviewers are being recognized for their efforts. To speed up the process, he suggests that the journal or authors’ home institution conducts a ‘zeroth pass’ review to check for basic comprehensibility. Marking up a collaborative version of a paper online would also make it easier for time-strapped researchers.

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Samuel Pichardo, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Canada

Sitting on the frontiers of biology, physics and engineering, Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express (BPEX) provides a home for scientifically sound, but conceptually marginal, studies. Interdisciplinary research is fast becoming the norm and, according to Dr Samuel Pichardo, BPEX is gaining ground as an attractive journal for cross-disciplinary approaches.

Helping to promote interdisciplinarity is not the only reason Dr Pichardo reviews for BPEX. As politicians begin to question the reliability of scientific studies, he sees it as his responsibility to uphold scientists’ integrity through peer review. Therefore, when refereeing, he looks for robust research, clear biomedical applications and good descriptions of the engineering methods employed.

Dr Pichardo is also a fan of open access software, citing an article on numerical modelling as an excellent example of scientists disclosing their methods: TIGRE: a MATLAB-GPU toolbox for CBCT image reconstruction. Full disclosure of software methods is a step in the right direction for reproducible research, he says.

Overall, in terms of reviewing, Dr Pichardo advocates a double-anonymous review process to help mitigate bias, although he realizes that this would not eradicate it completely. He also thinks it would be useful to be able to score manuscripts according to the degree to which authors disclose their methods.

Reminding first-time reviewers that a sound paper balances innovation with an adequate disclosure of methods, Dr Pichardo’s advice is to remain humble and to bear in mind that all reviewers generally want the same thing: the publication of high-quality research.