1. How To Be A Constructive Reviewer Publish, Not Perish: How To Survive The Peer Review Process Experimental Biology 2010 Anaheim, CA Michael J. Ryan, Ph.D. University of Mississippi Medical Center Jackson, MS 39216

2. Coming Up Importance of peer review To review or not Ethical considerations Technical considerations Components of the review Writing the review

3. You should be both an advocate for the reviewer and for the journal! Critical component of the scientific process that helps to ensure quality, accuracy, integrity and significance of the work

4. Remember

5. 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

6. 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

7. Conducting the Review ETHICAL TECHNICAL

8. 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

9. 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

10. Evaluating the Manuscript IMRAD Format Journal Title Abstract I ntroduction M ethods R esults D iscussion General Considerations Final Analysis Nimrod

11. 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?

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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?

16. Writing the review General comments section Summarize message of paper Overriding concerns Specific comments Major concerns Minor concerns

17. Be constructive! Carefully outline the strengths and weaknesses Avoid making judgments in the critique Avoid the use of sarcasm in your critique

18. “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?

19. 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!”

20. 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?”

21. 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

22. -Uncle Ben

23. 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)