What do Reviewers look for? Amira Klip Editor-in-Chief AJP - Endocrinology and Metabolism EB 2010, Anaheim

How are Reviewers chosen and who are they? Editor-in-Chief -- Receives notice of submission, assigns Associate Editor How? Step 1: Reads abstract, sees figures, gets gist of manuscript, confirms journal suitability, completeness of study, gauges most suited Associate Editor

How are Reviewers chosen and who are they? Step 2: Associate Editor assigns Reviewers: Reads abstract, sees figures, gets gist of manuscript, completeness of study, gauges most suited Editorial Board Members (EBM) or Guest Reviewers (typically 3, out of 3-6 requests) An EBM reviews on average 12 new ms/year

How are Reviewers chosen and who are they? All Reviewers are established members in academia, typically Associate /Full Professors. Offers to review by postdocs or very early career Assistant Profs: Useful? To whom?

Obligations and Responsibilities of Reviewers Reviewers must: be knowledgeable of the topic The best mix includes knowledge of topic, of technique, even of ‘view’ if diverse in the field comply with fast & fair response (12-15 days) declare conflict of interest, decline reviewing Tip: Authors’ requests for exclusion are honored Authors’ preferences of reviewers are often not

What are the parameters for review? What Reviewers look for: Mechanistic studies (physiology!) Complete, insightful studies (e.g., not 1-2 genes in 1-2 conditions) Results that represent significant advance Not encouraged for revision (i.e., Rejection): Merely descriptive studies (unless of profound analysis and implications) Minimalistic studies (skimpy results/depth) Incremental advance or negative results without much insight or resolution

What are the parameters for review? Positive elements that lead to Revision or Acceptance: Hypothesis driven, mechanistic approach Complete, insightful studies, significant advance Valid, solid, high-quality, thorough methodology Appropriate statistical analysis Congruent results and discussion (and abstract!) Deep analysis of results and related field

What about correlative studies or observational human studies? Correlations: Not sufficient for cellular or animal studies In human studies, only when significantly and deeply analyzed by: Sufficient number of cases Diverse parameters, beyond first level Differentiating a clinically relevant analysis from a physiological study In other words, only if complete, insightful studies, representing a significant advance

http://xkcd.com/552/ (with permission)

What about gene array, mass spec. lists, etc? On their own: Not sufficient for cellular or animal studies In human studies, only when significantly and deeply analyzed, e.g.: Sufficient number of cases Diverse parameters, beyond first level Differentiating a clinically relevant analysis from a physiological study In other words, only if complete, insightful studies, representing a significant advance

What do Reviewers transmit to Associate Editor? Comments to Editor: Nutshell of their evaluation Overall significance of study Any perceived problem: Ethics? Duplication? Plagiarism? Consistency? Need for further analysis by statistician EBM

What do Reviewers transmit to Associate Editor? Ratings: top 10%, 25%, 50%, lower 50%, for: Overall; Significance of findings; Novelty, Experimental design & Quality of data Recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject (Remember: 2 or 3 reviewers) Comments to Authors: Restricted to issues of the science No specifics on Rating or Recommendation

How do Associate Editors make the Decision? Thoroughly read all Reviewers’ feedback: Comments to Editor Rating Recommendation Comments to Authors Thoroughly gauge opinions, and own sense: May seek additional opinion (e.g., ‘tie breaker’ reviewer, statistician, Editor-in-Chief for ethical issues)

The Associate Editor’s Decision: Tries to act rapidly once reviews are in Acts on avrg on 100 new ms and 50 revisions/yr Chooses Decision: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; Reject May sway from ‘mathematical average’ of decisions based on own analysis Uses form letter, modifies as needed Adds Editor’s Comments Authors:Take these seriously, useful guidance, requirements!

Are Reviewers rated? Ratings are available to all Assoc. Eds. Absolutely! No Decision is emitted before Associate Editor enters value of each Review, every time Ratings are available to all Assoc. Eds. Editor-in-Chief analyzes performance of the Editorial Board Members periodically May remove EBM based on compliance to review, timeliness, usefulness of reviews

Thank You!