FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4235954987> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4235954987 endingPage "L204" @default.
• W4235954987 startingPage "L203" @default.
• W4235954987 abstract "EditorialCivil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journalsHershel Raff, and Dennis BrownHershel RaffDepartments of Medicine, Surgery, and Physiology, Medical College of Wisconsin and the Endocrine Research Laboratory, Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center, Aurora Research Foundation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and , and Dennis BrownCenter for Systems Biology and Program in Membrane Biology/Division of Nephrology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MassachusettsPublished Online:01 Aug 2013https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00119.2013This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (43 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat publication of our scientific work is our currency: unpublished results are invisible to the community at large and are, therefore, equivalent to work that has never been done. Because of this requirement to publish sound science, the process of peer review is part of our culture and has been integral to ensuring the highest quality of our publications since the 18th century (9). However, this concept has been questioned repeatedly over the past few decades (2, 6, 10, 12, 13), and some have even advocated eliminating prepublication peer review altogether (1, 7). The underlying premise of this initiative is that anything in the correct format is publishable, and that postpublication scrutiny using blogs and comments, a vox populi of sorts, will ultimately expose the truth. This was called “scholarly skywriting” almost two decades ago (5) and more recently “trial by twitter” (11). While proponents of this school of thought have increased in number and influence, the Publications leadership of the American Physiological Society (APS) continues to believe that prepublication peer review is worth the effort and cost and is critical to maintaining the scientific integrity of our publications.That being said, it is also vital that the peer review process be fair, equitable, and civil. There is no room for ad hominem comments in peer review, nor should self-serving or inappropriate motivations be allowed. Our Editors and Publications Committee occasionally receive complaints from authors that unreasonable demands and impossible requests for new experiments are articulated in reviews. We have probably all experienced such unnerving comments at one time or another. Requests for numerous new experiments, extensive new data analyses, or an unreasonable extension of the original hypothesis based on reviewer bias can be discouraging and inappropriate. Our Editors-In-Chief and Associate Editors handling a manuscript know that it is within their prerogative to modify or even discard such extensive and sometimes impossible requests by reviewers. Indeed, we encourage our editors to clearly articulate in their cover letter to authors which parts of the requests for revision by the reviewers are critical and which are unreasonable or unnecessary.So, what can be done to address these issues and improve the peer review process? To reduce the types of inappropriate behavior mentioned above, it has been proposed that revealing reviewer identities to authors might be helpful (3). It has also been suggested that removing author names from submitted manuscripts (and for that matter, grant applications) may improve the process. The APS Publications Committee has discussed and rejected both of these tactics and disagrees with the idea that they would improve peer review. This decision has been confirmed consistently by several thorough scientific analyses that failed to find a beneficial effect of blinding reviewers to authorship or of asking reviewers to sign their reviews (4, 8, 14, 15). It is virtually impossible to disguise authorship of well-known scientists within an area of focus (8), and many highly qualified and sought-after reviewers would not agree to participate in the process if they could not maintain anonymity (15).Instead, we prefer to be persistent in the education of our reviewers and editors alike, urging them to be sensitive to the needs and expectations of our author base. Most of those responsible for the review process are, of course, authors themselves. We ask them to wear their author hats when they are working on the other side of the fence performing the peer review process. The ethic of reciprocity should always come to mind; we should treat others as we expect to be treated.This editorial is intended to alert participants in the publication process that they have the responsibility to ensure that review procedures are rapid, fair, and equitable. This includes reviewers who should not let their personal feelings or experimental bias influence reviews; it includes editors who should strive to function not as administrators who simply pass along reviewers' comments to authors without guidance; and it includes authors who should realistically assess the comments of the reviewers and determine whether the remarks are justified. In this way, we hope to continue to transform the APS publication process into one that satisfies the dual requirements of ensuring scientific rigor as well as providing authors with a satisfying and constructive experience that will encourage them to submit their best work for consideration in our journals.DISCLOSURESH. Raff is chair of the Publications Committee of the APS. D. Brown is Editor-in-Chief of Physiological Reviews.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAuthor contributions: H.R. and D.B. drafted manuscript; H.R. and D.B. edited and revised manuscript; H.R. and D.B. approved final version of manuscript.REFERENCES1. Badger K. The Faculty of 1000 Biology factor will revolutionize scientific evaluation and publishing. Hypothesis 3: 10–12, 2005.Google Scholar2. Cicchetti DV. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci 14: 119–135, 1991.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar3. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 287: 2762–2765, 2002.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar4. Godlee F , Gale CR , Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280: 237–240, 1998.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar5. Harnad S. Implementing peer review on the net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. In: The Electronic Frontier, edited by , Peek R , Newby G. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 103–108, 1996.Google Scholar6. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263: 1438–1441, 1990.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar7. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci 63: 1–2, 2012.Google Scholar8. Justice AC , Cho MK , Winker MA , Berlin JA , Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: a randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 280: 240–242, 1998.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar9. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 263: 1321–1322, 1990.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar10. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1: 161–175, 1977.Crossref | Google Scholar11. Mandavilli A. Trial by twitter. Nature 469: 286–287, 2011.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar12. Rothwell PM , Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123: 1964–1969, 2000.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar13. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99: 178–182, 2006.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar14. vanRooyen S , Godlee F , Evans S , Smith R , Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280: 234–237, 1998.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar15. vanRooyen S , Godlee F , Evans S , Black N , Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318: 23–27, 1999.Crossref | PubMed | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: H. Raff, Endocrinology, Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center, 2801 W KK River Pky., Suite 245, Milwaukee, WI 53215 (e-mail: hraff@mcw.edu). Download PDF Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Cited ByAnnouncing the Editorial Board Fellowship Program of the American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologyLarissa A. Shimoda, Chunxue Bai, Nathan W. Bartlett, Julie A. Bastarache, Carol Feghali-Bostwick, Wolfgang M. Kuebler, Y. S. Prakash, Eric P. Schmidt, and Rory E. Morty7 July 2021 | American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Vol. 321, No. 1 More from this issue > Volume 305Issue 3August 2013Pages L203-L204 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2013 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00119.2013PubMed23686853History Published online 1 August 2013 Published in print 1 August 2013 Metrics" @default.
• W4235954987 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4235954987 creator A5027706003 @default.
• W4235954987 creator A5087672907 @default.
• W4235954987 date "2013-08-01" @default.
• W4235954987 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4235954987 title "Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals" @default.
• W4235954987 cites W1971896716 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W1972376036 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W1981127147 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2001662846 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2012950673 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2018223524 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2038579646 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2041212401 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2052899782 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2055124066 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2164136002 @default.
• W4235954987 cites W2212838023 @default.
• W4235954987 doi "https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00119.2013" @default.
• W4235954987 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23686853" @default.
• W4235954987 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W4235954987 type Work @default.
• W4235954987 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4235954987 countsByYear W42359549872021 @default.
• W4235954987 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4235954987 hasAuthorship W4235954987A5027706003 @default.
• W4235954987 hasAuthorship W4235954987A5087672907 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConcept C2778701210 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConceptScore W4235954987C17744445 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConceptScore W4235954987C199360897 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConceptScore W4235954987C2778701210 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConceptScore W4235954987C41008148 @default.
• W4235954987 hasConceptScore W4235954987C98045186 @default.
• W4235954987 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W4235954987 hasLocation W42359549871 @default.
• W4235954987 hasLocation W42359549872 @default.
• W4235954987 hasOpenAccess W4235954987 @default.
• W4235954987 hasPrimaryLocation W42359549871 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W160889949 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2113626999 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2364696089 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2377770720 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4235954987 hasRelatedWork W4311883357 @default.
• W4235954987 hasVolume "305" @default.
• W4235954987 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4235954987 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4235954987 workType "article" @default.