Abstract
Background
The excellence of a journal depends on the quality of peer review. The process of publishing scientific discoveries depends on considerable work by unpaid experts who volunteer time as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are the essential gatekeepers who maintain high standards of scientific rigor. Equally important, many manuscripts are significantly improved when the authors respond to insightful suggestions from peer reviewers.
Veterinary Pathology has been fortunate over the years in having a pool of highly dedicated and high-quality reviewers. Scientists are motivated to spend time reviewing manuscripts for a number of reasons. 7 Altruism and service to the community of science, and to the discipline of veterinary pathology, motivate many to spend time reading and reviewing manuscripts, but these are not the only reasons. Curiosity and the desire to stay current are equally important. Reviewers enjoy the challenge involved in the careful analysis and assessment of a manuscript. Finally, for the success of Veterinary Pathology, manuscripts must be reviewed carefully and rapidly, and this would be impossible without the active participation of the broad scientific community. 5
Conflict with other workloads is a major reason that potential reviewers decline invitations to review manuscripts. As discussed in the 2007 American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP) Town Hall meeting, pathologists have increasing demands on their time, and the stresses of multitasking continue to increase. The problem is compounded by the retirement or death of some of the stalwart experts of veterinary pathology.
Finding Qualified Reviewers
The challenge is threefold: 1) continued willingness of scientists to review manuscripts, 2) recruitment of new reviewers from outside the traditional circle of veterinary pathologists, and 3) inclusion of young scientists as reviewers.
We hope that the readers of Veterinary Pathology will be willing to review manuscripts when called upon. This willingness is essential for the smooth continuation of a peer-reviewed journal of high quality. Of course, there are times when it would be impossible to provide a review in a timely fashion, and one must decline. When there is a conflicting demand on one's time, the biggest contribution that a prospective reviewer can make is to respond to the request to review quickly and decline it. This allows the editors to select another reviewer expeditiously and avoid publication delay. If one must decline, it is particularly helpful to suggest names of others who might be willing to review the manuscript.
The editor-in-chief and associate editors continue to expand the diversity of the pool of reviewers by including subject matter experts from allied disciplines that are relevant to the manuscripts. This is important, because many manuscripts incorporate specialized techniques other than those of conventional pathology. We also encourage international participation as reviewers.
Most importantly, we encourage pathologists early in their careers to volunteer as reviewers, and we encourage senior scientists to mentor new reviewers. Reviewing manuscripts is an academic skill, which like other academic skills requires vigorous and proactive mentorship. 3, 4 Many academic mentors teach trainees how to review by funneling manuscripts to them, reviewing the manuscripts in parallel, and then comparing notes. Mentors can be those we routinely rely on for support in our disciplines, such as faculty members or senior scientists, but, in addition, can be the journal's associate editors. Sometimes, it can be useful to submit a review informally to an associate editor or editorial board member and ask for feedback before actually entering the review in the journal's computerized AllenTrack system.
Reviewer Guidance
The key to a helpful review is to identify major strengths and weaknesses that the editors can use to determine whether or not the manuscript is publishable. 3 The reviewer should identify the flaws in the design, presentation, interpretation, and overall importance of the research. If there is a hypothesis (even an unstated hypothesis), do the data support it? Or, for case reports, does the evidence support the author's diagnosis? Science is, by definition, a work in progress, so absolutely rock-solid evidence in support of a hypothesis or a diagnosis may not be possible. The important question for the reviewer, as a scientist in the discipline or an expert on the methods, is whether the evidence is sufficiently convincing within the scope of the manuscript, with the full understanding that if it is an area of interest, more studies will follow. 9 It may be appropriate to ask the authors to acknowledge the limitations of their study and the conclusions they have drawn. The reviewer should resist the temptation to ask for additional experiments that more properly would be the subject of another paper, but, at the same time, sometimes a manuscript can be substantially enhanced by specific reviewer's suggestions.
The critical core of the review is scrutiny of the authors' data. Careful, detailed inspection of the figures and tables is essential to determine if the data support the authors' assertions. Further, the methods must be appropriate to answer the question and to generate the data. It is especially important to think critically about the reagents and their validation. For example, if an antibody is used for immunohistochemistry, what is the evidence, either in the manuscript itself or by others who are cited, that the antibody is specific to the target? If the manuscript is a research study rather than a case report, it is important to consider whether the controls are appropriate and adequate.
It is also useful to assess if statistics have been applied correctly and if the statistical methods are appropriate. As Hoppin points out in his excellent paper on how to review scientific papers, statistical errors can be caused by inappropriate assumptions rather than simply picking the wrong method. 3
In some cases, the reviewer may not have the expertise to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript. Increasingly common is the study in which scientists from multiple disciplines collaborate in the research. It is helpful for the reviewer to advise the editor as to which aspects of the manuscript fall within his or her purview. Then, the editor can include other reviewers with the appropriate expertise.
Another critical question is whether the work is novel, original, and not published elsewhere. It is often necessary to check some of the authors' key references and to do an online literature search. The reviewer should ascertain that the pivotal references in the field are included. The reviewer, as a specialist familiar with the field, is in a good position to advise the editor if the manuscript sufficiently advances the field to make it worth publishing in Veterinary Pathology. Some manuscripts are technically impeccable yet report findings that are so trivial that they should not be published in a high-quality journal.
Presentation of Data
Reviewers should also be gatekeepers who catch errors of presentation, lack of clarity, and poor organization. If the writing is unclear, sloppy, or otherwise inadequate, the manuscript should be returned to the authors for editing. One of the biggest challenges for reviewers of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Pathology represents the manuscripts from non-English-speaking countries with authorship by scientists whose first language is not English. For such manuscripts, the editorial staff does not wish to reject papers that provide valuable learning. As a resource, Veterinary Pathology utilizes ACVP member volunteers fluent in the native language of the author to assist the author. Although translation services exist, these services typically are not sufficient because of the technical nature of our science and the necessity for the translator to understand the science for adequate presentation.
While recognizing that there are multiple styles of writing that are acceptable, the reviewer should assess the basic structure of the presentation in the manuscript. Sentences in a paragraph should relate to the central theme of the paragraph, the paragraphs should relate to the theme of the paper, and they should be prepared in a logical order. The abstract must adequately summarize all aspects of the work and should include actual results (it is not acceptable to just say “results are discussed”). The introduction should not only describe the current state of knowledge, but also explain the purpose of the study. Materials and methods should be placed in the Materials and Methods section rather than in the Results section; all of the results should be placed in the Results section and not be unveiled later in the Discussion section. Other principles of scientific writing have been excellently described. 1,2,6,8
Reviewers also can be very helpful in identifying whether the figures and tables present the data clearly and that these are properly titled. When examining graphs, it is important to ask if the axes are appropriate. For example, a small difference over time can be overemphasized if only a small range is shown on the y axis. The reviewer should carefully assess the tables. Sometimes, voluminous data in the text can be expressed more simply in a table.
The technical quality and necessity for photomicrographs should be addressed. In addition to technical aspects, including focus, color balance, even illumination, and acceptable, nondistracting background, is the magnification appropriate and do the figures convincingly illustrate the intended point? The figure legends should be well written and contain the information necessary for the reader to interpret the figure without referring to the body of the manuscript.
Writing the Review
The reviewer should provide comments that are global, then comments specific to each section, and finally comments on specific lines in the text with careful communication to ensure clarity. Because of the electronic format of Veterinary Pathology's editorial process, it is most useful if the comments, including those referring to specific lines of the manuscript, are written as a stand-alone review, rather than placing comments into the text.
In writing the review, it is important to be respectful, polite, and constructive at all times. Nearly every paper represents hard work on the part of the authors, and they deserve respect. A rule of thumb is to not say anything that you would be embarrassed or ashamed to say face-to-face. Character assassinations are inappropriate in the reviewers' comments.
Ethics
Ethical behavior is essential to the peer-review system. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest to the editor. The world of pathology is a small, close-knit one, and it is common for reviewers to have had various professional and personal contacts with the authors. If there is any doubt about what constitutes a conflict of interest, it is safest to communicate with the editor, specify exactly what the interaction is between the reviewer and author, and to let the editor decide. Sometimes, the reviewer has already reviewed the manuscript for another journal; the editor should be advised of this. Confidentiality of the manuscript must be maintained. If the reviewer does want additional input from colleagues or mentors, it is appropriate to advise the editor while ensuring confidentiality from the additional person(s) involved.
The manuscript should be reviewed fairly, without consideration of the reputation or fame of the authors. Even a top laboratory will sometimes submit weak or flawed papers, and authors who are unknown to the reviewer may produce stellar work.
Obviously, it is unethical to delay or reject a manuscript for competitive reasons, and reviewers must not make scientific use of the findings from a manuscript for one's own research until the manuscript is published and available to the general scientific community.
Summary
With these guidelines, reviewing can be a fascinating way to engage in the progress of scientific knowledge. As one reviewer wrote, “The best reviewers also appreciate the opportunity for teaching and find reviewing a good paper as informative and exhilarating as participating in an inspiring work-in-progress research seminar. The quality of their reviews, furthermore, is importantly contagious.” 3
The editorial staff of Veterinary Pathology believes that any and all ACVP members should agree, when requested, to review papers on topics within their realm of expertise as a service to the membership. Only by broad support from the membership will our journal achieve the highest impact possible. Veterinary Pathology is grateful to and thanks the many excellent scientific reviewers who have made Veterinary Pathology such a high-quality journal. We hope to continue and grow this fine tradition by recruiting and mentoring additional talented reviewers.