1. Reviewer Responsibilities-
UW - Madison 1

2. Importance of Peer Review
History
18th century
20th century
Continued controversies
Recent personal experiences illustrating value of thorough, objective peer review
As a manuscript author
As a peer reviewer
The peer review process determines the public record of science!

3. Why Should You Be A Peer Reviewer?
Responsibility to your profession / field of science
Add up to date findings / ideas to your own knowledge base
From the manuscript
From other reviewers
A valuable, unique teaching tool for your trainees

4. Expectations of a Reviewer
That you are an expert on 1 or more topics of the manuscript …ability to judge whether findings offer a “significant advance”
That you truly have no conflict of interest – legal or otherwise
Punctual! …be sure you do have the time to do a good job NOW!
Be worthy of the TRUST that authors and editors have placed in you, the reviewer!

5. Should the journal Impact Factor (IF) have any bearing on your review?
…journal IF likely has little bearing on the quality of the manuscript you will review!

6. What should you do if you suspect scientific misconduct?
Duplicate publication
Plagiarism
Unacknowledged use of data from a previous publication
Figure manipulation
Fraudulent data

7. Negative findings. Are they of value. …worth publishing
Negative findings? Are they of value? …worth publishing? …held to a higher standard?

8. Should you accept an invitation to review a manuscript which you already reviewed for another journal? …what do you have to offer? - Inform the editor

9. Reviewer Responsibilities / Conduct
Move the field forward
Encourage important, thorough science
Improve the clarity of the message
Language
Speculation, length
RESULTS presentation is key!
List strengths / weaknesses …has the author disclosed the study’s limitations?
Courtesies, fairness, objectivity …suppress your own competitive instincts / ego!

10. Bias?!
Try very hard NOT to allow the “status” / reputation of the authors influence your judgment …one way or the other!

11. Requiring extra experiments
Requiring extra experiments! …be absolutely sure that this requirement is consistent with the author’s aims! …not YOUR aims!

12. Golden Rule of Reviewing
Treat the manuscript as you would want your own to be treated!
Appreciate knowing that your peer review offerings are essential to the quality / integrity of science!