We Revise a Nearly 100 Page Report

This week at the lab, I have been focusing on the prospect of revisions, which we talked through today. After a researcher or research team submits their work to a journal or other publication source, other professionals in the field evaluate the writing and make comments and suggestions to improve the work and sometimes to point out concerns regarding methods, results, and even figures. For most review processes, the review occurs across multiple rounds. First, a journal editor evaluates the work to determine if it is suitable for the journal or if there are major surface-level issues. If the work passes this first round, the editor sends the paper to independent peer reviewers who spend a few weeks commenting on any aspect of the paper that draws their attention. Sometimes these comments are asks for the researchers to improve the clarity of the paper, sometimes the comments suggest a new way of analyzing the data, and sometimes the reviewers write comments that are not meant to reshape the writing (comments like, “I appreciate the way you explained [x]”). After the reviewers read the paper and write their comments, they make a recommendation about the status of the paper, which falls under the broad categories of ‘accept’, ‘revise’, or ‘reject’ and each broad category contains subcategories like major revisions or reject with possibility of resubmission. When the researchers receive the decision, they get to see all the comments and if they are revising the paper, they work to address each comment by making changes to the paper or by explaining to the reviewer and editor why they will not be modifying a section. The researchers will then send the paper back to the editor, the paper may go through another round of review and revisions, and so on until the paper is potentially accepted for publication.
 
This week, we started the process of revisions to our major report on the effects of historic Bonnet Carré Spillway operations on oyster biomass in the Mississippi Sound. This report is not a journal publication, but a scientific report, so our report goes directly to peer reviewers, rather than through an editor and then out for review. Our team sat down to discuss the reviewer comments and to determine which member was best suited to address which comments. Since the reviewers come from outside of our team and organization, their notes and feedback provide the musings of a researcher who is not innately familiar with the study system, the study design, and the thinking that went into creating this product. Therefore, the review provides guidance on which areas of the report we need to clarify and which items we can improve with additional figures or by modifying figures. We hope to complete these edits over the next few weeks and then send the report back for either additional feedback or approval.
 
I am excited to get this work ready for another submission, as this marks the end of my first big project at the lab. The oyster mortality project that I’ve written about previously came from this work but is an independent item (more updates soon), so finishing this report is a giant checkmark on my list of tasks. Finally, to get you excited for what my blogs will feature throughout this semester, I will be writing about: more water sampling trips in February and April, the workforce development project that I am leading in southern Mississippi, a teacher workshop featuring marine robotics, and a science conference at the very beginning of May to wrap up the semester. Stay tuned for more.