About the history of scientific publications.

Long before the time when articles in scientific journals became the mean of communication among scientists, the results of research were stated in scientific books, called treatises (from Latin tractatus – subjected to consideration).

Beyond all doubt that exactly books, not journals, accompanied the beginning of scientific revolution.

The direct predecessor of the scientific journals in the 17th century were learned letters, which the scientists exchanged.

The most famous are Galilean letters about sunspots and planets’ orbits, which were lately published as a collection, that is a book.

Galilean’s letters were not personal messages to friends or colleagues, but they were essays, describing results of experiments and observations, and intended for wide public interested in it.

Men and scientists contribute to effective and fast dissemination of such scientific notes; they rewrite and then distribute these messages to researchers and friends.

The position of secretary appeared with the appearing of scientific communities, the duties of the secretary were a copying and a distribution of the letters of the community members and researchers.

In march, 1665 the first issue of the scientific journal <<Philosophical Transactions>> was published.

Peer-review procedure.

When a manuscript of an article goes to the editor, then the editor makes some preliminary decisions. Firstly whether the thematic of the manuscript suits the thematic of the journal? If the thematic, obviously, does not correspond, then the author immediately gets a message with refusal in publication of the manuscript by the reason of nonconformance to the journal thematic. Such a refusal means only that you chose the journal incorrectly. The manuscript should be just sent to another journal, but do not forget to check whether the article corresponds to formal requirements of other journal.

If the thematic of the article presented corresponds to the journal thematic, then the editor asks himself: «Whether the manuscript is organized appropriately, that is whether the manuscript is printed correctly, whether all the tables and pictures are presented, whether the literature list is organized correctly...» and etc.

If not, then the manuscript is rejected. Do not try to submit the manuscript repeatedly without corrections, since this only causes the anger of the editor, but does not make him accept it. After that the editor should decide who will review the manuscript.

When the manuscript goes to the editor, the editor makes some preliminary decisions. First, whether the subject of the manuscript to the journal theme? If the subject obviously does not match, then the author immediately receives a message with a rejection of a manuscript due to the inconsistency of the scope of the journal. Such denial only means that you chose wrong in the log. The manuscript should just be sent to another journal, but don't forget to verify whether the formal requirements of the article to another journal.

If the theme of the article submitted fits the profile of the journal, the editor asks himself: "is the manuscript organized appropriately, that is, whether the manuscript is printed correctly, whether all tables and figures presented is whether the reference List is organized correctly...", etc.

If not, then the manuscript is rejected. Do not attempt to submit the manuscript again without corrections, as it only causes the anger of the editor, but does not force him to accept her. After this, the editor must decide who will review the manuscript.

In most of journals the manuscript is considered by two reviewers, and many of them ask the authors to make a list of 5-6 names of potential reviewers of the manuscript. In another way the reviewers are assigned by the editor among the members of the editorial board or specialists who work in your field and give consent to write a review for your manuscript.

The most of authors know that the notes of reviewers allow improving the article essentially, although the first reading of the notes can cause some negative emotions. Later an additional study will give an understanding that the author should be grateful to the reviewers who made a great work trying to improve the article.

After getting a review of the reviewers the editor will decide what to do with the manuscript. If both the reviewers consider the manuscript to be appropriate for publication without any corrections or with slight corrections, then the editor, obviously, cannot decide not to accept for publication, and the corresponding letter is sent to the author.

Unfortunately, in many cases the reviewers are not so unanimous. In such a case the editor in-chief takes a decision independently or send the manuscript to the third reviewer. The first case occurs when the editor-inchief is good at the thematic of the article.

The second case takes more time as usually and less prepared editors come to it. The decision to publish or not to publish the manuscript is taken by the editor-in-chief, and the members of the editorial board and the external reviewers recommend only. Usually this occurs in 4-6 weeks after submission of the manuscript.

If there are no messages during 8 weeks then do not hesitate to write to the editor. 4 variants of decisions of the editorin-chief are possible:

▸ 1. to unconditionally accept or accept with minor revision;

▸ 2. to accept it in the case that its authors modify it in certain ways;

▸ 3. to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission;

▸ 4. to reject it outright.

If you get a letter from the editorial board, in which it is written something like «your manuscript has been accepted for publication», then you can be proud of you, since only 5 % of the manuscripts in journals of scientific profile are accepted for publication with such a formulation. But it is more likely that you still get a message of other type.

If in the letter of the editor-in-chief there is written that «your manuscript has been reviewed, and it is being returned to you with the comments and suggestions attached. We believe these comments will help you in improving your manuscript», then it means that the manuscript presented is not so bad, and it can be published in the journal, but after there are done the changes suggested by the reviewers.

Read carefully (and without emotions) the reviewers’ opinions. Try to understand whether you can and want to change the text as it is suggested. If the opinions of the reviewers are identical, then there is definitely a problem there.

One of the reviewers can be prejudiced against the article, but a case when two reviewers are non-objective – it is incredibly (if only you chose them yourself when composing the list of reviewers for your article). If it seems to you that both the reviewers in a whole understood the text of the article incorrectly, then it is likely that the same will happen to readers, because you wrote not enough clearly.

Rewrite the text or even completely re-do the manuscript, before you send it to the same or another journal. If the changes suggested by the reviewers are not many and do not concern the matter, then hurry to do them. If the reviewers insist on the significant changes, then you need to look the work through one more time.

Three ways are possible. The first – the reviewers are right, then one should rewrite the manuscript in accordance with their notes. The second–the reviewers are right in some of their notes. Then one should rewrite the manuscript in accordance with those recommendations which seems to be true.

Regarding other recommendations one has to give explanations directly in the cover letter or indirectly introducing into the text the changes taking off the objections. If, in your opinion, the note of the reviewer arises from an incorrect understanding of the text, then rewrite the text, so that the reviewer (and readers) would understand correctly.

In the third case you are sure that both the reviewers are not right, criticizing the manuscript and insisting on its essential rework. Then you can just send the manuscript to another journal, hoping that there it will be read by understanding reviewers and evaluated correctly.

If you have a strong desire or necessity to publish the article exactly in such a form and exactly in this journal, then one can try to correspond with the editor-in-chief. Submit the manuscript for publication one more time, and accompany it by a letter, in which you extremely tactfully explain the editor why you cannot agree with the reviewers’ opinions. Consider the opinions of the reviewers separately.

Remember, that the editor-in-chief – is a scientist, and he does all his best to accept the scientifically grounded decision regarding the possibility of the manuscript publication. If all your disagreement with the reviewers’ comments is the words that the reviewers are “stupid” and understand nothing, then be sure that your manuscript will not be published in this journal.

From the other hand, every editor knows, that the reviewers can be wrong and they are often wrong. If you explain without epithets and emotions where the reviewers are wrong and why (never write that the editor-in-chief is wrong!), then probably the editor will send the manuscript to other reviewers or even completely agree with you, what occurs seldom.

If you decide to introduce the corrections into the manuscript in accordance with the notes of the reviewers, then strictly adhere to the time fixed by the editor. Suppose that the manuscript was rejected and you got a message in which there was written that the manuscripts ubmitted was unacceptable in the form presented or just unacceptable. Remember, that in good journals the half of the articles is not accepted for publication.

Then carefully read the letter, since there are different types of refusals in manuscripts publication. When there is a refusal of the first type, then there is usually written that in general the base of the work could have been published, but deficiencies of the experiment (for example, a bad control) or the great defect in the text makes the manuscript unsuitable for publication in the form presented.

If you get a refusal with such a text, then it is worthwhile to work for a while and re-do the experiments or the text (figures, tables) so that how it is pointed in the notes of the reviewers, and send the treated variant to the same journal. You can add data about control experiments, as the editor writes, and then the manuscript likely will be accepted.

Many editors reject articles because of the deficiencies in an experiment, although it is often that they can be eliminated, if one just changes the data representation in the manuscript. It is also that one can do all the recommended changes, completely rewrite the discussion or even re-do the original full-scale article into a short message (a note), then it will be accepted by the editor.

The second type of refusal means that the manuscript is absolutely unacceptable. If the message with the refusal has such a meaning (it is likely, of course, not in a rude and direct formulation), then it is useless to argue and do the repeated submission of the same material. Before you should re-do the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers and send it to another journal, then try to evaluate it logically.

It is possible that the work is so bad, that it is better not to send it anywhere, since it can harm your reputation. If there are parts in the manuscript which can be kept by uniting them with the results of other researchers, then do it and represent the manuscript to another journal.

Sometimes at the refusal of the second type there would be written in the letter of the editor that the article contains valuable scientific information, but it suffers from essential deficiencies, which makes the manuscript in a whole to be unacceptable for publication. This means that a repeated submission of the treated manuscript is not recommended, since usually the editor does not consider that even essentially treated manuscript would be acceptable for publication in this journal.

You can again try to submit the manuscript after corrections in the same journal, only if there are serious arguments, which can convince the editor-in-chief that the reviewers were wrong in their evaluations. You can hold the manuscript until you obtain additional proves for your rightness, and you can write more substantiated conclusions.

In the cover letter at the repeated submission of such a “new” manuscript one should refer to the first variant and describe in short which new results have been obtained. Probably, at the peer-review process it is important to remember that the editor is a moderator between you and the reviewers.

If you regard the editor with respect and defend your manuscript substantially and constructively, then most of your manuscripts will be accept for publication. The modern international system of scientific publications is far from the perfection, however, as everything in this world.

However for a scientist there is no more valuable experience than preparation and publication of an article on results of his or her investigation. There is an especially valuable experience if you get a refusal.

If your manuscript gets a refusal in several journals by the reason that the reviewers do not see the meaning in your work, then do not be upset, be persistent, continue looking for a journal for your publication – you are in a good company,.

For example, Lynn Margulis, author of the modern theory of symbiogenesis, which is one of the important achievements in biology of the 20th century, before publication of his article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, got a refusal from 15 journals, and the journal Nature refused in publication to P.A.Cherenkov, the future Nobel Laureate in Physics.