By Katherine Denton, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Whenever I look back at the first paper I published, I see a mistake. It’s not major, but it irks me every time I look back at that work! Reviewing your own work is hard, reviewing other peoples’ is harder still.
Scientific knowledge is largely based on evidence that is shared via research published in scientific journals, such as The Physiological Society’s Experimental Physiology. So the task of reviewing these papers is essential to scientific progress.
Research is a puzzle
I often view research as a jigsaw that is missing some pieces. In my work, I find pieces of evidence. Others, in the same field around the world also work on the same puzzle, and I read about their research. I’ve spent years trying to make them all fit into the big picture.
At times I have to recognise that a piece does not fit and either discard it or prune the parts that don’t fit. This is the way in which progress happens. The veracity and interpretation of data underpins our growing body of knowledge. And scientific journals play an important role in building our knowledge base via the peer review process.
Experimental Physiology is a mid-tier journal, at least according to its impact factor. Impact factor remains an important measure of quality, but it is losing ground, with the internet and social media creating new ways of measuring impact.
I am a professor and my research is in the area of cardiovascular and renal physiology, focussing on how the kidney contributes to the regulation of blood pressure.
For Experimental Physiology, I am a Senior Editor, focusing on renal physiology papers. I recently agreed to another term, principally, because its online system is the best I’ve ever used and the support staff are wonderful, so they make the job easy.
Experimental Physiology is also supported by a talented and dedicated group of reviewers, without whom the job would be impossible. Reputationally, a major strength of the journal is its adherence to rigorous review.
What makes an excellent reviewer?
From the point of view of a Senior Editor, the following are important.
- Respond to an invitation to review, promptly – If your response is yes then that’s great and we can start working together. Even if your response is no, then at least I can move on to the next possible reviewer and do not need to waste time waiting. Minimising time to publication is important for both the author and the journal, and delaying the review process will lengthen this.
- Complete your review in a timely manner. Making sure each step of the peer review process happens on schedule is critical to ensuring the whole process won’t be delayed.
- Whilst being critical of the big scientific questions being interrogated in a paper is important, remember to also ensure that all the details of experimental design, how measurements were made, the age and sex of the participants (human or animal) are being reported. Such transparency allows the readers to evaluate the work more quickly and to determine how it fits with the rest of the field. It also allows others to reproduce the work and prevents the perpetuation of misleading findings.
- In the comments to the editor be bold and state your opinion of the work. The editor is often not expert in the paper’s topic, and is seeking your perspective through the review process. Do not simply cut and paste your comments to the authors; doing this is not helpful because the editor will have already seen these. If in the revision you think the inclusion of some point is critical for future acceptance, make this clear. For example – without the addition of a certain important control group, the conclusions drawn are baseless and therefore not acceptable.
Please note that all views expressed on The Physiological Society’s blog reflect those of the author(s) and not of The Society.