Understanding the Basics of Peer Review: Part 1 – Receiving a

Manuscript

IMPULSE Journal for Undergraduate Neuroscience

This is a the first of a two part on-line tutorial for new student reviewers for IMPULSE. IMPULSE is an on-line

Journal for Undergraduate Neuroscience Research. Both undergraduate-authored neuroscience research articles

and neuroscience review articles are accepted from undergraduates around the globe. Articles then are sent out to undergraduate, peer reviewers around the globe

for peer review. These student reviewer teams have been set up at numerous undergraduate colleges and universities using a variety of models. Following peer

review the manuscript is accepted as is, requires revision, or found unacceptable. This first tutorial will walk you

through the process of peer review.

Developed by: Matthew Fisher, 2011Advisor: Sarah M. Sweitzer, PhD

Peer Review

• Definition– Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or

performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field

• Peer Review Journal– A peer review journal comprises literature of similar

type that has been through the peer review process.

IMPULSE IMPULSE

IMPULSE is a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Below are the definitions of peer review and peer-

reviewed journal.

Executive Editor

Associate Editor

Associate Editor

Associate Editor

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

ReviewerReviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

Reviewer

Peer-Review HierarchyIMPULSE IMPULSE

The Executive Editor receives and determines if the manuscript should be

sent to associate editors to send out for review.

Reviewers are asked to review

the scientific content of the

manuscript.

Associate Editors answer to the Executive and are

placed in charge of a review team.

ManuscriptSubmitted

ExecutiveEditor

Associate Editor

Reviewer Reviewer Reviewer

Paper accepted

for Publication

Paper sent back to author

IMPULSE

STEP 2:The Executive Editor must decide if the overall paper is appropriate for the

journal.

STEP 3:If the paper is not appropriate for the journal

or if there are major problems with the format,

the paper is returned to author without review.

STEP 1: A manuscript is

received.

STEP 5: The Associate

Editor sends the manuscript to reviewers.

STEP 7: Based on the reviews the Executive Editor and Editor-in-Chief decide if the paper is accepted,

requires revisions, or is rejected.

STEP 6: Reviews are sent back to Associate Editor who compiles them and

sends to Executive Editor.

STEP 4: If the paper is deemed

appropriate, it is sent to an Associate

Editor.

STEP 8: Manuscript is returned to authors

indicating accepted for publication, requires revision, or rejected.

Manuscript Formatfor Original Research

• Abstract• Introduction• Materials and Methods• Results• Discussions• Acknowledgments• Works Cited

IMPULSEIMPULSE

Listed to the left are the common sections

of an original research manuscript. In the next few slides

some common guidelines for each of

the sections are provided.

Abstract

• The abstract is a concise summary of the manuscript.

• The abstract should include a brief part of each section– Introduction– Hypothesis– Methods– Results– Conclusions

• The abstract should “grab” the potential reader’s attention with as few words as possible.

IMPULSE IMPULSE

Why do we care? Why is this important?What was being tested?How was it being tested?

What was found?What does it mean?

Generally <250 words

Introduction

• The introduction relates background information related to the manuscript.

• The introduction should include:– Significance of work– Background science– Hypothesis

IMPULSE IMPULSE

Begin an introduction with broad concepts and then “funneling”

to more specific information relevant to

the paper at-hand.

Funnel ApproachBroad Narrow

What does the author expect?

Why is this important?

Citation of the scientific literature

Usually 500-750 words

Materials and Methods

• The materials and methods section describes the methodology used when gathering data.

• This section should include:– Materials used– Methodology

*Another investigator should be able to read this section and re-create the work

IMPULSE IMPULSE

Narrative format. NO LISTS!

Step-by-step procedures*

Unlimited words

Results

• The results section presents all data collected throughout the project.

• The results section should include:– numerical data– associated graphs, charts, tables, etc.– Statistical significance should be indicated

*Only data should be presented here. The discussion is later!

IMPULSE IMPULSE

In narrative format

Clearly labeled

P<0.05 is significantP>0.05 is not significant

If it is close to significance then perhaps a larger sample size is needed.

Unlimited words

Discussion

• The discussion draws conclusions from the project as it relates to other research in the field and potential future direction of the field.

• The discussion section should include:– Restatement of hypothesis/thesis– Hypothesis refuted or accepted?– Interpretation of data– Big picture relevance– Future directions

IMPULSE IMPULSEUsually <1500 words

Why do we care? Why is this important?

What was being tested?

What questions do these results raise?

What was found?What does it mean?

How does it relate to the literature?

Acknowledgements

• The acknowledgements sections allows the author to thank anyone or anything he/she deems appropriate. All financial support must be listed.

• Often included in this section:– research mentors– fellow student investigators– grant organizations

IMPULSE IMPULSE

MUST HAVE PERMISSION TO ACKNOWLEDGE

SOMEONE!

References

The references section allows the author to provide a detailed description of all sources used in the manuscript.

– These sources are arranged in a particular format specified by the journal.

IMPULSE IMPULSE

Understanding the Basics of Peer Review: Part 2 – How to Review

the Manuscript

IMPULSE Journal for Undergraduate Neuroscience

IMPULSE IMPULSE

This is the second half of a two part on-line tutorial for new student reviewers for IMPULSE. This second tutorial will

walk you through the peer review of an original research manuscript. While

some of the generalities of peer review also are true for a review article, some of the details in this module are specific for

original research manuscripts.

Developed by: Matthew Fisher, 2011

Once You Receive A Manuscript…1) Be sure to understand the correct journal format for the submitted

manuscript.

2) Read any necessary background information to become familiar with subject area.

3) Identify the main points and thesis of the manuscript.

4) Assess methods and findings.

5) Associate related graphs, charts, tables, etc. to the results.

http://impulse.appstate.edu/submissions.php

Yes, you may have to do a little research. Are you the appropriate person for reviewing this manuscript?

Do you understand what they did? Could you repeat the experiment?

What was their question? Why is their question important?

Are the figures/tables/charts effective in presenting the main findings?

Reviewer Training ArticleWe are using a particularly good paper published by

IMPULSE as a teaching tool. With the authors’ permission we have introduced errors to show how to recognize and correct such problems; the modifications to the article to represent the original, first and second revisions are purely fictional and for educational purposes only.

Title: Oral Self-Administration Of Ethanol In Transgenic Mice Lacking β-EndorphinAuthors: Sidney B. Williams, Ashley Holloway, Kevin Karwan, Stephani Allen, Judith E. Grisel

How to use this tutorial

The best way to use this tutorial is to read the sections as typed and try to identify problems based on what you learned in the first tutorial.

Then click through the slide and suggested revisions will be highlighted and identified.

These suggestions are not exhaustive and in fact you may find some additional changes to suggest.

Abstract-Original Submission

EtOH modifies the production and/or release of endogenous opioid peptides, including -endorphin (Gianoulakis, 2004; Przewlocka et al., 1994; Schulz et al., 1980). Opioids subsequently influence the reinforcing properties of EtOH and the development of alcoholism (Terenius, 1996; Van Ree, 1996). In this study, beta-endorphin deficient mutant mice were used to examine the effects of a specific opioid peptide on EtOH consumption. Mice were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA. Male and female, adult naïve mice were single housed in Plexiglas cages with corn cob bedding and ad lib access to food (mouse chow) and water. A two-bottle free choice EtOH oral self-administration paradigm was administered to homozygous mutant mice (void of all beta-endorphin), heterozygous mice (50% beta-endorphin expression), and sibling wildtype mice (C57BL/6J). Subjects received increasing concentrations of EtOH (0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, and 15%) each given over an eight day span, and were evaluated for preference and consumption each day. Bottles were switched every other day to avoid the development of a side preference. Overall, females drank more than males. Homozygous mutant mice (KO) showed decreased preference for EtOH at all concentrations, and self-administered significantly less than heterozygous mice (HT) and wildtype mice (C57). The HTs had a tendency to drink the most followed by the C57s, and the KOs drank the least. These data support the hypothesis that beta-endorphin influences the reinforcing effects of EtOH.

Abstract – EditsWhat does this mean? Make sure to identify abbreviations.

References belong in introductionInaccurate InformationMaterial and Methodsknock-outThis should appear in Discussion

Abstract – Revised

Ethanol (EtOH) modifies the production and/or release of endogenous opioid peptides, including β-endorphin. Opioids subsequently influence the reinforcing properties of EtOH and the development of alcoholism. In this study, β-endorphin deficient mice were used to examine the effects of a specific opioid peptide on EtOH consumption. A two-bottle free choice EtOH oral self-administration paradigm was administered to homozygous β-endorphin knock out, heterozygous, and wildtype mice. Subjects received increasing concentrations of EtOH (0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, and 15%) given over an eight day span, and were evaluated for preference and consumption each day. Overall, females drank more than males. Homozygous knock out mice showed decreased preference for EtOH at all concentrations, and self-administered significantly less than heterozygous and wildtype mice. These data support the hypothesis that β-endorphin influences the reinforcing effects of EtOH.

Introduction-Original Part 1

This is a good example of an Intro sentence.The meaning of this is unclear. A reference should be added to clarify this statement.

The structure of this sentence is confusing. Split into two sentences.

This has already been discussed and should be moved up in the Introduction.

Add the information from the human study here to enhance the background information. This would

give human clinical relevance.

EtOH has already been explained. There is no need to do this twice.

Introduction-Original Part 2

Make sure to look for a thesis.This belongs in Discussion.It is unclear if this statement deals with a previous

study. Be sure that background information is relevant to any previous study.

Introduction-Revision 1 Part 1

This statement can be made more concise.This statement is not needed. To meet limits, be sure to only include relevant information.

This sentence can be started at “Rodents with lower…”This concept is related to a genetic liability.What changes? This section is very vague.The structure of this sentence is confusing.

Introduction- Revision 1 Part 2

This citation appears twice. It should be removed from the beginning of the citation.

It is unclear is this was actually the prior Grisel study.This statement is not needed. Instead of saying that it is “unfortunate,” just tell what the new study is researching.

This entire section can be simplified. Only state the pertinent points.

Introduction-Revision 2 Part 1

Introduction- Revision 2 Part 2

Notice that the revision has a much shorter and

focused Introduction. The accepted Introduction

contains only the relevant information to

understanding the study and is void of unwanted

information.

The materials and methods

section should let someone replicate the

study without the need for a

“miracle.”

Materials & Methods - Original Part 1

Where did the mice originate from?Was all of this approved by an approval committee? = ETHICS

What sex was used? Were both sexes used and in what ratio?

Much of the missing information from this part

of the Materials and Methods is crucial to

understanding the study. Remember to be as specific as possible so that another researcher could recreate

the study!

Materials & Methods – OriginalPart 2

There is no mention of statistical analysis. Although

the author does mention some ratio information, the reader also needs to know any statistical programs, software programs, etc.

used.

Materials & Methods – RevisedPart 1

The section does a good job of giving detailed information about the mice and where they originated.

The statement explains that the study was approved by an animal care committee.

This explains that both sexes of mice were used.

Materials & Methods – RevisedPart 2

This statement explains more details of the mice in the study.

This explains the statistical analysis techniques used.

It is important to note that, unlike other sections of a manuscript, the Materials

and Methods section often needs more information to

be added by the writer.

ResultsThis is a descriptive word and should be

avoided.These are good key words to look for.This is unclear.

DiscussionThis citation is inappropriate and unclear here.This citation leads the reader to question the

reasoning for this study.This whole section seems to repeat the Introduction.This WAS NOT tested in the study.A citation should reference this information

DiscussionA new sentence about future directions would be

appropriate here.This is very poorly worded.This is not a scientific term. Although the writer may

understand the term, not all readers will.This is unclear. Never speculate without explaining.The writer should expand and explain these ideas.This is a great example of a closing thought.

Writing your review

• A review should include:– A brief summary of the main hypothesis and findings

of the manuscript– Overall opinion of the manuscript. Move from positive

to things requiring revision.– Detailed review

• Major strengths and weaknesses• Minor weaknesses

Writing your review• How you write it is EVERYTHING!

• Be courteous.• Remove the personal.• If you would not like to be on the receiving

end of your review, or you would not sign your name to it, then you likely need to change how you phrase comments and suggestions.

Examples of Feedback

This manuscript sucks. It has numerous problems with the abstract, introduction, and methods. The students did not do a very good job designing their experiments. I would not accept it!

What to avoid:

Why this is not acceptable? Sucks is negative and not constructive! Numerous problems is useless feedback….make lists of

corrections/additions/deletions that would improve the manuscript. “the students….” - This is a personal attack! I would not accept it! - You as a reviewer do not get to decide if the

manuscript is accepted (only the Executive Editor has that job) and your opinion does not belong in the review that is being sent out to the authors.

Examples of Feedback

This manuscript explores the hypothesis that both male and female mice lacking beta-endorphin will voluntarily consume less alcohol than wild type mice. Several major and minor concerns have been identified and are listed below.

Abstract:Minor concerns:1.The abstract could be written more concisely.2.References should not be included in an abstract.3.All abbreviations need to be defined the first time they are used.4.Details of mice and procedures need to be moved to Materials and Methods.

An example of part of a good review:

Examples of Feedback

Introduction:Minor concerns:1.The introduction could be written more concisely.2.Several references are missing.3.Moving the animal and human beta-endorphin behavioral studies to the first paragraph may enhance the significance of the current study.4.The paragraph on the previous study as it relates to the current study is unclear as to what was done previously and what is being currently proposed.5.The explanation of the current study can be streamlined.6.The final 3 sentences belong in the discussion.

An example of part of a good review cont’d:

Examples of Feedback

Materials and Methods:MAJOR concerns:1.What is the source of the mice?2.Were these methods approved by an institutional animal care and use committee?3.What sex animals were used?4.How many animals were used?5.How was the data analyzed?

An example of part of a good review cont’d:

These are major concerns as opposed to the previous minor concerns because these concerns

impact the experimental design and interpretation of results (aka: The meat of the science!)

Examples of Feedback

What to avoid:“This sentence is wrong.”

“Put a comma here.”

“Your data is wrong.”

Better ways to phrase:“As written the meaning of

this sentence is unclear.”

“A comma would be appropriate here.”

“It would appear that the written results do not match what is shown in Figure 1.”

Congratulations!You have completed

the IMPULSE peer reviewer on-line training module.

Try to remember the feelings of the author

as they read your reviews….we don’t

want them to feel like the scientist in the

cartoon!