Transcript Comments to Editor

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-inChief 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?
• 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