Publish, Not Perish: How To Survive The Peer Review Process
How To Be A Constructive Reviewer
Michael J. Ryan, Ph.D.
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Jackson, MS 39216
Experimental Biology 2010
Anaheim, CA
Coming Up
• Importance of peer review
• To review or not
• Ethical considerations
• Technical considerations
• Components of the review
• Writing the review
Critical component of the scientific process that
helps to ensure quality, accuracy, integrity and
significance of the work
You should be both
an advocate for the
reviewer and for the
journal!
Remember
Should you review a paper?
Do you…
• Have the specific expertise?
• Have the time?
• Have the time right NOW?
• Have the objectivity to be fair?
• Have the discipline to maintain confidentiality?
• Have any conflict of interest?
If not, decline the invitation
What Constitutes a COI?
• Working on a similar project
• In dispute with author
• Friends with the authors
• Recently trained in same lab
(<5 yr)
• Recent collaborators (<5 yr)
• Biased about this work
Conducting the Review
TECHNICAL
ETHICAL
Ethical Aspects of Review
• Prior approval from IACUC and proper care
and use of animals
• Prior approval for human studies received
from humans and institution
• Plagiarism
• Confidential treatment of manuscript
• Evaluation of paper done in ethical manner
Technical Aspects of Review
•
•
•
•
•
Scientific quality of manuscript
Writing/graphics quality
Novelty and significance of work
Rating compared with other work in field
Suitability for journal
Evaluating the Manuscript
IMRAD Format
•Journal
Nimrod
•Title
•Abstract
• I ntroduction
•M ethods
•R esults
•D iscussion
General Considerations
Final Analysis
Introduction
• Does it succinctly identify what is known and
unknown about the topic?
• Is previous work in the area appropriately
included?
• Is the experimental question, goal, hypothesis or
aim clearly stated?
• Does the question asked have a biological or
clinical significance?
Methods
• Are the subjects of the study adequately described and
are they appropriate to address the main question?
• Is the experimental number sufficient?
• Are proper controls included and were subjects randomly
assigned to groups?
• Does the study design directly test the proposed question?
• Are the methods cited or described appropriately?
Results
• Are the data clear and well organized?
• Are the figures and tables all needed?
• Are the data presented in appropriate units?
• Are methods for all data in the Methods section?
• Do the data make sense physiologically?
Discussion
• Are the major findings clearly summarized?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Are limitations and alternative explanations
discussed?
• Is it clear how the findings advance the field?
• Is the discussion supported with references?
Other Considerations
•If your criticism does not affect the key conclusion,
do not emphasize it.
•Is the paper well written?
•Do the authors have conflicts of interest that are
not noted?
Writing the review
General comments section
• Summarize message of paper
• Overriding concerns
Specific comments
• Major concerns
• Minor concerns
Be constructive!
• Carefully outline the strengths and weaknesses
• Avoid making judgments in the critique
• Avoid the use of sarcasm in your critique
Constructive or Destructive?
“Unfortunately, there are holes here that one
could drive a Mack truck through...”
"I found myself holding the pages up to the
lights to try to ‘see’ if I agreed with their
findings."
Constructive or Destructive? (cont.)
“I didn't like this paper the first time around
and now, I hate it. It is crappy science and
there is absolutely nothing new in it.”
“Now I know where ‘out to lunch’ came from!”
Be nice to your editor too!
“Obviously I am very pissed-off. Here we
open a new field of study, provide a whole
new tissue target for consideration of the
origins of hypertension, possibly - just
possibly -find the missing link tying brain
and kidney together - and I get a review
like you send me?”
Summary
• Can you fairly review the study?
• Evaluate both technical and ethical aspects.
• Do not lose sight of the big picture.
• Clearly summarize the strengths and weakness
in a constructive way.
• Don’t forget the
-Uncle Ben
References
• Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to Review a Paper. Adv.
Physiol. Educ. 27:47-52, 2003.
(advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/27/2/47)
• Being A Reviewer. In: Writing and Reviewing for Scientific
Journals (APS Professional Skills Course, Lesson 9
PowerPoint)
(www.the-aps.org/education/profSkills/materials.htm)
• Seals DR, Tanaka H. A Helpful checklist for students and
novice referees. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 22:52-58, 2000.
(advan.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/23/1/S52)