members – The Endocrine Post

Peer Review Week 2016 is taking place from September 19-26. The global event celebrates the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining scientific quality. The central message is that good peer review is critical to scholarly communications.

This year, the theme is ‘Recognition for Review’, so we have asked some of our members to tell us about how they first got involved in peer review, why it’s important to them, and why is it essential for the continuation of high-quality science and clinical research.

Li Chan is a clinical scientist in paediatric endocrinology at Queen Mary’s University London. She discusses why peer review is important to her – and you.

Remember that peer review isn’t just about the journals and funding bodies; it’s also important to the author and the reviewer. The author receives constructive feedback to ensure that their work is presented in the best way and backed up by necessary experimental data. Reading other reviewers’ comments and alternative views on a given set of data may allow you to consider your work from another point of view – and that could make the difference between published and unpublished.

On the other hand, the reviewer gains career development and insight. The reviews you write for others will only aid your own future submissions. Over the years I have learnt an immense amount from both writing reviews and receiving them – and I believe this understanding of both sides of the process is necessary for it to work really effectively.

But how did I get into peer review? During my PhD years, my supervisor would ask me if I wanted to review a submission. I always said yes – working with my supervisor at the start was a useful way of learning the process as I could discuss my final report with someone more experienced. Gradually, I developed my own style and expertise.

If you are a young researcher wanting to get into peer review, I would recommend you speak to senior members of staff. They will only view your enthusiasm with positivity. And don’t think for a moment you’re underqualified; science is such a broad subject – we need reviewers with expertise in all areas, and that includes yours!

Karen Chapman is the Society General Secretary, as well as a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Endocrinology and Journal of Molecular Endocrinology. She discusses the importance of peer review in career development.

Publications are the main criterion we are judged on – and I believe the quality of our outputs is dependent upon a thorough review process. With this in mind, I believe we all must do our part to get involved in peer review. We depend on others to review our own papers, and so we all need to reciprocate.

After over 30 years as a research scientist (and not far off 30 years as an Editorial Board member of one sort or another), I have plenty of experience of peer review – from both sides. Yes, it is tough to read the rejection letters and to have your research critically appraised by someone whose identity you can only guess at, but most of the time the reviewers have a fair point, and often their comments substantially improve a manuscript.

Many of us (me included) get into peer review by appraising a manuscript passed to us by a co-worker or lab head. My first one took me forever. I think I read all the references! However, I soon learned to speed up, and concentrate on the data and how they are interpreted. This process also taught me what to look for in my own research and how to evaluate my data through a reviewer’s eyes. I believe reviews work best when a writer suggests a mechanistic experiment that can really nail the conclusions presented. It does happen; and this could be the sign of a great reviewer!

You stand to gain an awful lot from getting involved with peer review, but if you still aren’t convinced, remember that reviewing is also beneficial for keeping up with what is new. It’s a great way to stay ahead of the game!

We’ll be on Twitter all week showing our support for the campaign using the official hashtag #RecognizeReview – and we’d love to hear your experiences of peer review! Also, check out some of our online talks for even more advice on getting into the peer review game:

Wayne Tilley – The Peer Review Process
Dr Josef Koehrle – Responding to reviewers comments

You can also sign up for free webinars and talks through the Peer Review Week 2016 official website.

This year, I was lucky enough to attend my first parliamentary links day. The largest science event in the Houses of Parliament, this day is held to promote dialogue between parliament and the scientific community. Given the vote to leave the EU less than a week earlier, it couldn’t have been a more interesting time to attend!

The scientific community directly benefit from the EU in terms of funding, collaboration and free movement of people. It was therefore no surprise that this year’s event saw the biggest attendance in history. The event, opened by John Bercow MP (Speaker of the House of Commons), involved opening remarks from Jo Johnson (Minister for Universities and Science) and Nicola Blackwood (Chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee). Two panels then followed, and then final speeches were given by Lord O’Neill of Gately, Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, and Stephen Metcalfe MP. Bewildered scientists filled the room, all anxious about their now uncertain future, and all speakers tried their best to reassure us.

‘Nothing has changed overnight in legal terms’ said Jo Johnson. MPs agreed that we have a strong country with a resilient history, and are able to pull through. Our science in particular they say is world class, and this can be used to help in our recovery. Many speakers told of reassurance from abroad, recognising the work we do and that they want to continue collaborating. These academic networks can therefore provide an alternative to the political networks, and help to smooth waters. So the message was one of hope and determination, despite the disappointment.

All emphasised that we now need to shout loud to ensure that science is prominent in the negotiations and in particular that the government maintain our overall investment in science. MPs assured us that they will do their best to fight for these things, and they said that we also need to send out the message to connections and networks across the world, that despite this decision Britain is a willing collaborator and welcoming society. Finally, they asked us to think about what we can learn. Although leaving the EU would clearly be bad for science, half of the public still responded with the leave vote. This suggests that science is not important to them, so what can we do now to convince people that science is worth investing in?

I will always remember this day at such an important time in British history. After all the hope given I look forward to seeing what the future holds for UK science!

Amber Abernethie is in the second year of her PhD in Cardiovascular Biology. She is based at the Queens Medical Research Centre (University of Edinburgh) but is originally from Cleethorpes, England.

Following the referendum result on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) the Society for Endocrinology urges the UK government to ensure that free movement of students, researchers and clinicians between the UK and other EU countries and full access to, and participation in, the EU research infrastructure is preserved. We strongly believe that the free movement of labour is essential to the delivery of care within the National Health Service (NHS) and to ensure that the UK continues to be a world leader in international scientific research. The full statement is available on our website.

Tag: members

How to get into peer review and why

Life after Brexit for UK scientists