Search the Community

Peer Review Week Q&A with JNeurosci and eNeuro Editors-in-Chief Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review | September 3 - 15, 2018 To continue this discussion on a different platform, check out the discussion post on the new eNeuro blog site. Join us here in the Neuronline Community for the 2nd Annual Peer Review Week Q&A. The forum will open to the public for questions on September 3rd. The EiCs will answer questions beginning September 10th. Related resources: Get a sneak peak at the Neuronline article The Importance of Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review. JNeurosci editorial Peer Review Week 2018: Diversity in Peer Review ENeuro editorial Diversity: The Art of Reviewing Independently Together Read the 2017 Peer Review Week Q&A on Transparency. For more information about Peer Review Week, visit https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com. Follow Peer Review Week 2018 on social media using #PeerRevDiversityInclusion #PeerRevWk18. Login is required to post a reply. If you are a current or previous SfN member, use the email address and password you used to join SfN. non-SfN members should create a new account. If you are unable to log in, please email questions to neuronline@sfn.org.

A recent editorial by Christophe Bernard, editor in chief of eNeuro, keeps alive the discussion about ways to improve peer review. Endorsement of our work by competent peers aids in improving its quality and scientific rigor. However, a perfect peer-review system has yet to be achieved and the process still remains a multifaceted issue in scientific publication. Gender and career stage may represent a significant factor adding to the potential bias of our peers when evaluating our work. Personally, I have no problems in receiving tough comments, as long as they are constructive, because they are meant to be for the benefit of the scientific community. What I cannot endorse, however, is the attitude that some reviewers exhibit, i.e., an aggressive communication style that is not intended to bring constructive criticism, may sound teasing and belittling and is only aimed at breaking our work into pieces. Most of the times, this type of peer-reviewing attitude ends with the rejection of the manuscript following one or more rounds of reviews made by fierce comments. I think that gender and career stage may surely influence the way some peers conduct themselves when acting as reviewers, as the editorial also discusses. And I also agree that one possible solution to such issues could be a double-blind peer-review system. However, some of our peers are inherently destructive with their comments and even an interactive review process or the publication of reviewers’ names and their comments may fail in establishing boundaries between constructive and destructive peer-review. Should we then establish guidelines in order to attain an appropriate style of peer review that is not offensive, but is constructive and actually helps improve our work? Can editors act as moderators and even decide to remove such reviewers from their assignment?

Peer Review Q&A with JNeurosci and eNeuro Editors-in-Chief image.jpg1200×678 154 KB Please note: This Q&A is open to the public. Login is required to post a reply. If you are a current or previous SfN member, use the email address and password you used to join SfN. non-SfN members should create a new account. Do you have a question about the peer review process? Want to know about becoming a reviewer? Do you wonder what an editor does for a scientific journal? Neuronline is hosting a Q&A with the Editors-in-Chief Marina Piccioto (JNeurosci) and Christophe Bernard (eNeuro) for Peer Review Week. Post your questions in the replies below! Forum will open to the public for questions on September 4th. The EiCs will answer questions beginning September 11th. Editors-in-Chief Marina Picciotto, Journal of Neuroscience Marina Picciotto is the Charles B.G. Murphy Professor and Deputy Chair in the Department of Psychiatry at Yale University, as well as Professor of Pharmacology and Neurobiology at Yale University School of Medicine. She received her PhD in Molecular Neurobiology from The Rockefeller University and pursued her postdoctoral fellowship at the Institut Pasteur. Picciotto has made significant advances to our understanding of the role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in addiction, depression, feeding, and learning/memory. Christophe Bernard, eNeuro Christophe Bernard is the director of research at INSERM U1106 in the Institute of Systems Neuroscience. Bernard received his PhD from the University of Paris VI and conducted postdoctoral research at Southampton University. Bernard is interested in mechanisms underlying the construction of an epileptic brain, including seizure genesis and propagation with a focus on temporal lobe epilepsy. His lab is designing and using new tools to help with epileptic research. Login is required to post a reply. If you are a current or previous SfN member, use the email address and password you used to join SfN. non-SfN members should create a new account.