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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9.
(with permission)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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!

15. 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

16. Thank You!