RAD3004 Assignment Three Provide a Peer Review of a Manuscript This assessment task involves the drafting of a peer review. Students will undertake this task individually. The review has a word limit...

RAD3004 Assignment Three
Provide a Peer Review of a Manuscript

This assessment task involves the drafting of a peer review. Students will undertake this task individually. The review has a word limit of 1,000 words.

The role of peer review in neuroimaging research

Publication in the scientific literature is the principal way that neuroimaging researchers disseminate the outcome of their studies. Peer review is a critical quality control check in the process of publication. Scientists with acknowledged expertise are invited by journal editors to read and appraise manuscripts submitted to journals. The aim of this evaluation is to ensure that the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew. Editorial decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript are informed by the reviewers’ appraisals.

What is being reviewed?

The manuscript for review is titled:

“Play it again, Sam: brain correlates of emotional music recognition”

This paper was published in Frontiers in Psychology on February 18th, 2014.

The paper can be accessed on the Moodle site, and has been reconfigured to resemble the format of a submitted manuscript.

Why review a paper that has already been published?

Frontiers in Psychology is an open access journal. The introduction of open access journals has been a major change in the publication of scientific literature. The financing of open access journals is often dependent on fees paid by authors of the articles. For instance, the current fee for a publication in Frontiers of Psychology of the type being reviewed is US$2950.

The task for the assignment is to provide a review that is consistent with an alternative journal that follows a more traditional approach – Human Brain Mapping.

What does a peer review entail?

Human Brain Mapping is a journal published by Wiley. Advice is provided by Wiley to reviewers, and can be found at:

https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to- perform-a-peer-review/index.html

The primary objective of a review is to assist journal editors to decide if a manuscript is suitable for publication. The review also serves as feedback to the authors. A thoughtful review has considerable potential to improve the quality of

a manuscript. Astute authors will accept valid criticisms and make changes to the manuscript in line with reviewer comments. This process is most likely to contribute to improved quality when reviewers take a constructive approach. A review, by its very nature, is critical, but reviewers should strive for a helpful tone, as opposed to an aggressively adversarial approach. It is especially important to avoid personalised comments, such as negative reflections on the aptitude of the investigators, etc.

A review can highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the research. Pointing out strengths is necessary to make a case in favour of acceptance. Focusing exclusively on negative aspects of a manuscript, and then advocating publication is likely to create confusion in the mind of the editor. Similarly, a positive review paired with a recommendation to reject is unhelpful. Your task is to weigh the pros and cons of the manuscript, accurately convey the logic of your appraisal, and deliver a verdict that is sustained by your assessment.

I have placed two reviews of neuroimaging studies of pain on Moodle. These are offered as examples of reviews that either advocated acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The two examples follow a similar structure. Summaries of the main elements of the manuscript are provided at the beginning of the review. The appraisal of the manuscript usually deals with general issues first, and applied questions follow. Some reviewers choose to delineate between major and minor questions for the authors. The first category is likely to include questions about the study rationale, methods and interpretation. Minor questions or suggestions will point out things like spelling and grammar mistakes, clarity of language, referencing glitches, figure quality, etc. Focusing on minor issues isn’t appropriate in the context of your assignment, although highlighting especially egregious errors (for instance - mislabelling of anatomy, confusion between left and right side of the brain, etc) is warranted because it tends to indicate a lack of rigor. General comments can also be made about the prevalence of errors, i.e. infrequent, more than expected, so frequent as to adversely impact on readability, etc.

The two examples of reviews on Moodle are approximately 500 words long. Journals rarely mandate the length of reviews, but reviewers tend to favour brevity, and editors appreciate an economy of words. The word limit for the assignment is 1000 words. Consequently, students can provide more than usual detail when appraising the manuscript. You will be able to demonstrate your understanding of why a particular element of the research is noteworthy or of questionable validity. Reviews do not typically include many references, but you can consider citations if they lend support to your points.

Ticking the boxes

As the final component of the assignment, you are asked to complete a questionnaire and indicate your recommendation according to the options used by Human Brain Mapping. This section should not contribute to the word count.

Indicate your response (yes or no) to each of the following questions:

Here is the list of possible recommendations, from which you must nominate one option:

Most of the recommendation options are self-explanatory. The following is offered as further guidance:

Accept as Submitted– this option would rarely be used upon initial review of a manuscript. It is generally reserved for manuscripts that have been revised and re-reviewed.

Accept After Minor Revision (without Re-review)– this option is chosen when the reviewer’s comments are confined to minor points (spelling mistakes, etc.). It is expected that an editorial re-review will be sufficient to ensure suitable changes have been made. Once again, this option is more frequently chosen in response to a resubmission.

Revise and Reevaluate After Major Revision (with Re-review)– the implication of this option is that the manuscript has the potential for publication, but that substantive issues identified by the reviewer need to be addressed. Reviewers are expected to appraise the authors’ responses to their critique once a revision is submitted. This option is not appropriate when the study described in the manuscript has shortcomings that are unlikely to be remedied by revision (i.e. requires larger sample or additional control groups, questionable validity of measures, flawed rationale for approach).

Reject – Insufficient New Information– reporting the outcomes of a study that simply reiterates a well-established effect does not warrant acceptance for publication in Human Brain Mapping. Studies that fail to admit to a conclusion (neither support nor refute motivating hypothesis) would also attract this option.

Reject – Scientifically Not Sound- this option is reserved for studies of poor design, execution and reporting that fail to provide useful information.

Reject – Not Appropriate For Journal– manuscripts that describe studies unrelated to the objectives of the journal are occasionally sent for review, although editors would reject the majority of unrelated studies without requesting a review.

Reject with Invitation to Re-submit– this option is appropriate when the amount of work required to address reviewer comments goes beyond revision. Re- submission would be advocated when a study has a sound rationale, but the execution is inadequate to allow a meaningful conclusion. Reviewer recommendations such as the provision of additional measurements, increased sample size, further controls, or major new analyses would be compatible with this option. A resubmission is treated as if it were a new submission, and will be sent for initial reviews.