1. How to Become a Reviewer P. Kay Lund, PhD Sarah Graham Kenan Professor Cell Biology & Physiology Nutrition & Pediatrics Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Physiology: Gastrointestinal and Liver Why is peer review important? Steps to becoming a reviewer and being an effective and fair reviewer When not to review

2. Publications are the currency of our field We want timely, fair and constructive reviews for our own papers We should give back to the system

3. Problems with Peer Review recently highlighted http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has- changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong Problems with scientific research How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. APS journals take peer review very seriously

4. Reviewing papers is an integral part of being a scientist: aside from being “asked to review” Set aside regular time to read scientific papers Examine your research projects and goals o List the key relevant areas o List the areas that relate even indirectly o Develop a database/system to be informed about prior and new papers in these areas – become an expert o Ask your mentor and colleagues about the “memorable” or “game changing” papers in the field – know them – ask/consider why they are important o Don’t forget/ignore the older literature Recommendations for graduate students & postdoctoral scholars

5. How do you read a paper in a critical but constructive way? Read the abstract Read the introduction Skim the methods or not? Focus on the figures (and figure legends) Read the discussion Don’t “believe in” the authors’ conclusions Ask yourself if the data, interpretation and conclusions convince you

6. Hypothesis, methods, experimental design and statistics are critical The abstract and introduction should pose “testable” significant hypotheses The abstract should clearly communicate the findings and their significance (and not overstate them) Don’t skim the methods! They can seem to be boring “technical” details, but they are the essence of whether a study is well done and if methods and reagents can be more broadly applied Are all the important controls included? Negative & positive?

7. Methods – The devil is in the detail Is sufficient detail provided so that the study could be replicated? How many layers of cited papers do you need to access to establish the actual methods or scientific pedigree of a reagent, method, cell line or mouse model? Look at the supplementary material (AJP journals no longer accept, except for large data sets)

8. There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics. ― Benjamin Disraeli Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable. ― Mark Twain A recent survey of North American males found 42% were overweight, 34% were critically obese and 8% ate the survey. ― Banksy If your experiment needs a statistician, you need a better experiment. ― Ernest Rutherford Statistics are somewhat like old medical journals, or like revolvers in newly opened mining districts. Most men rarely use them, and find it troublesome to preserve them so as to have them easy of access; but when they do want them, they want them badly. ― John Shaw Billings Statistics, statistics, statistics: Lies, damn lies and statistics

9. o Know statistics, check with statistician about your own studies (ahead of time) o Clear rationale for choice and use of a statistical test, justification of N o Is N a technical replicate or a biological replicate and is it clearly stated? o Quantitative versus qualitative data o Is one “representative” photograph/blot sufficient if no quantitative claims are made?

10. Experience with the review process Journal clubs Review manuscript drafts for others in the lab or program Have others review your work – abstracts, posters, papers, reviews, grants Expect and appreciate critical (but constructive) input Fixing the typos is not critical input

11. Ask your mentor if you can assist with reviews Must inform editor Must ensure confidentiality Mentor must be willing to provide guidance and critique/approve your comments Most mentors appreciate assistance o Students and postdoctoral scholars will typically do a thorough job

12. Practice Strategies Write a review (i.e. a peer review) on… o A published paper (compare notes with a peer) o A draft manuscript of lab member (compare notes with a peer) Encourage graduate courses to adopt this format Attention to detail is important but avoid TMI (too much information)

13. Take advantage of workshops and networking opportunities Many offices of postdoctoral affairs, graduate programs or training programs offer sessions on peer review Attend “meet the editors” sessions and have mentor/colleague introduce you to editors. Let them know of your interest Join professional societies o Workshops o Typically editorial board members are society members

14. How do we choose reviewers, and when are you sufficiently experienced? No “set in stone” approach Many reviewers involve senior graduate students and postdoctoral scholars Mentors contact editors to suggest postdoctoral scholars as reviewers o Initially, review is done in concert with mentor o Postdoctoral scholars who do good reviews are put into the reviewer database (AJP-GI & Liver) Always suggest reviewers when you submit your papers o But not best friends or close colleagues with clear conflict

15. Comments of editors and other reviewers represent useful feedback If you participate in a review with your mentor, request editor permission to share the decision letter with you If you do the review, read the decision and comments of other reviewer carefully Did you agree? Were there points you missed/disagreed? Were there points you raised that the editor emphasized in decision? You cannot discuss any aspect of the paper, review or outcome with others (except with editor permission) This needs to be done carefully, since the manuscript is confidential and must be destroyed post review

16. When not to review… If the paper is outside or peripheral to your area of expertise If major portions are beyond your expertise/area (although you can inform the editor that you can review parts of the paper, and they can guide you whether to proceed) You are in personal or scientific conflict o Relationship with authors (friendship, ongoing collaboration) o You have any reason other than the quality of the paper to “delay” publication or have competing submission o You have had a major negative interaction with authors If in doubt, disclose to the editor at the abstract stage and get advice

17. When to stop and contact editor/editorial staff You notice any issue of integrity or ethics Animal or human protection issues Obvious figure manipulation, duplication, plagiarism Always best to seek editor input – they will inform about the process