Last year, the case of research misconduct involving Dong-Pyou Han made headlines. Han, a biomedical researcher from Iowa State University, was sentenced to 57 months of prison and fined $7.2 million for falsifying results in federally funded HIV vaccine studies. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI), one of the bodies overseeing research integrity in the United States, had simply forbidden Han from receiving federal grants for three years. However, taking a view of the magnitude of the act, Senator Charles Grassley pressed for more severe punishment, and eventually, criminal charges were pressed against Han. The case received extensive media attention and the most widely discussed question within scholarly circles was: Should scientific misconduct be considered a criminal offense? 

Misconduct in research is a serious offence that amounts to the violation of professional ethics as well as public trust. Disturbingly, incidents of misconduct among researchers have been on the rise. Some markers of this are the increasing volume of retractions and data fabrication incidents as well as the reproducibility crisis. Accusations of misconduct are usually followed by investigations by the institutions that accused researchers are associated with. Typically, when an incident of misconduct surfaces, it leads to journal retraction, termination of employment, suspension, funding bans, and so on.  Seldom do we hear of instances where misconduct leads to prosecution. However, these penalties are not always successful in deterring researchers from committing fraud in the future. Some science professionals have pointed out that research misconduct should be brought within the periphery of the penal code. Would considering academic fraud a criminal offence be fair to researchers? Would such a step encourage researchers to be ethical and honest? Is it possible to deal with research misconduct in a courtroom?

One of the principal arguments in favor of criminalizing research misconduct is that researchers are not above the law and their fraudulent acts should be dealt with in the same manner as any other deceitful crimes such as theft, felony, and embezzlement. Of course, the magnitude of the misconduct should determine the level of punishment meted out to guilty researchers. For instance, honest errors or unintentional indulgence in misconduct is exempted by the ORI. Nevertheless, intentional acts of misconduct that involve misuse of federal funds or endanger public health should not be taken lightly and deserve legal attention. This is also the opinion held by some medical practitioners like Zulfiqar Bhutta, the co-director of research for the Centre for Global Child Health at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Dr. Bhutta says, “If someone defrauds tax payers with research money and falsifies data or falsifies entire research results, it is no different than any other form of similar economic crime.” Advocates of this argument are in favor of adding criminal proceedings to the current measures used to bring researchers to justice. According to them, the legal aspect would break researchers’ assumption that they can continue to lead a normal life with minor sanctions despite being found guilty of misconduct.

On the other hand are those who express the inefficacies and inanity of prosecuting research frauds. Scott Burris, a professor of law at Temple Law School, states that such a step could have a “chilling effect on science.” It is argued that most researchers are honest and are not hardcore criminals. They are under tremendous pressure on the professional front and some succumb to it. Paul Thaler, a Washington DC based lawyer who represents researchers embroiled in misconduct proceedings, says that guilty researchers can “be productive members of society after they pay their penalty, so too does science not necessarily want to rid itself of all scientists accused of misconduct.” Taking this argument further, Burris adds that criminalization of misconduct would discourage researchers from venturing into controversial or sensitive areas of research, such as gene editing, which might increase their chances of being penalized.      

Another aspect to this issue is the institutions’ hesitation to pursue criminal charges. Most institutions lack the money and resources to prosecute guilty researchers. Moreover, getting embroiled in legal trials is likely to bring bad publicity, which most institutions would want to avoid. Cases involving research-related misconduct tend to be complex and are completely different from other kinds of proceedings, informs Thaler. Lawyers have to rely heavily on their clients or appointed experts to understand the case and its intricacies. Susan Zimmerman, executive director of the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, sums up the problem aptly: “The amount of time and energy and resources that would go into attempting to prove a criminal conviction — and if you fail to meet that very high burden of proof, that person will get off.” As a result, institutions prefer to handle cases of misconduct on their own with the help of governing bodies like the ORI. Many support this view because they feel scientific institutions are more capable of understanding and resolving allegations of misconduct compared to lawyers and police officials.

Many in the scientific community believe that only the worst offenders should be prosecuted. Those involved in fraud that has limited repercussions can receive punishments such as funding bans or termination of employment. David Wright, a former ORI director, says that barring a researcher from receiving funding is the highest level of sentence a governing body can impose. He says that it amounts to “a professional death sentence” and adds that, “It’s questionable how much more is to be gained by jail time.”

This is an extremely controversial topic with varying opinions. What do you think about this? Should researchers involved in misconduct be sent to prison? If not, what is the most ideal corrective action? Please leave your comments below.

References:

When Scientists Commit Fraud, It’s ‘Scientific Misconduct’ – Should It Be Criminal Fraud?

HIV researcher found guilty of research misconduct sentenced to prison

Scientific fraud: Is prosecution the answer?

8 things you might not know about research misconduct proceedings: Guest post

Former ISU scientist's stiff fraud sentence sends message

Should fraudsters be criminally prosecuted?

Richard Smith: Should scientific fraud be a criminal offence?

Here’s why this lawyer defends scientists accused of misconduct

Early career researchers, though young and lacking publication experience, are strongly motivated to push their way through the academic publishing world—a world full of frustrations, ups and downs, and more frequent disappointments than successes. Some of the frustrations these researchers encounter are rarely addressed. Editors often write editorial pieces on how to get accepted or published, follow guidelines of the journal, or conduct proper research, all of which are very useful and informative topics. However, what early career researchers could really benefit from, for example, are tips on how to improve their manuscript after it has been rejected by a journal, especially in the case of desk rejections accompanied by the generic response of "not of interest to our readership."

I have tried to learn about the issues that lead to rejection, as they strongly affect researchers’ lives, but I couldn't find too much guidance. People don't talk about these things enough. For example, researchers in the West are vaguely aware about publication biases but don't necessarily encounter many real-life cases. 

For a junior in the field of publishing, getting published in a high-impact factor, prestigious journal is a dream come true! You spend a year or two conducting a study with grant funds; this includes procuring materials and equipment, conducting experiments, collecting and statistically analyzing the data, and of course writing the paper. So we're talking 2-3 years to complete and write up a research study. Further, the regular challenges are compounded in a country like Jordan, where you are faced with added hardships. For example, research funding is scarce due to limited resources; academics are hard-pressed for time to conduct good quality research due to heavy teaching loads; and in some cases, English as a second language may be a barrier to expressing meaningful research ideas and drafting publication-ready manuscripts. Then comes getting the paper accepted in your target journal, which could take anywhere between 1 and 2 years. And this is when you first get a taste of the world of academic publishing, a world that doesn't seem to care how much time and effort you spent on your work; even if your research is good, your manuscript could easily get rejected.

This brings me to a few frustrating issues that I and many of my colleagues have encountered but are not openly spoken about:

1. Racism in publications: I find that many good submissions get rejected just because the author hails from a developing country/region, such as the Middle East, or any region other than Europe (for European journals) or the US (for US journals). I and many dedicated researchers from my institute have experienced this. It’s frustrating to work really hard to get published and then end up getting rejected, only to find another inferior research paper getting accepted in that same journal, presumably because the authors are from the country the journal is published in or from the West. Or sometimes I see papers with errors (some major and some minor) get published, while it seems like my paper was scrutinized under a microscope to find anything that could be deemed an error.

2. Preference for well-known figures as contributing authors: There are pioneers in every field, whose contributions are undoubtedly highly valued. However, even if their contributions become outdated or repetitive (I say this from experience), any publication with their name on it means a fast publication.

3. Selection of a reviewer who isn’t quite well acquainted with the research topic: It is extremely upsetting when a reviewer gives comments that highlight his or her limited knowledge of the research subject (in addition to spelling mistakes while expressing his or her views), and worse still when the editor decides to reject the manuscript based on this reviewer’s decision, even though the other reviewer recommends accepting the manuscript and has no major suggestions for improvement. This hardly makes any sense to me.

4. Bias of the editor/or an editorial board member against the idea, methods, or materials used in the research: It is difficult to complain to anyone about a bias harbored by the editor or one of the board members because you usually come to know about it by word of mouth, or from this person’s coworkers. Though this is upsetting, you really can't do much about it, as this person has the power to simply reject your manuscript.

5. Desk rejection without an explanation: This is the worst of all! Assuming that you’ve read the journal instructions carefully and matched the journal scope, I find desk rejection justified only when the editor explains in detail the reasons behind the decision. However, most of the time (>95% in my opinion), the reject decision letter seems to be based on how the editor “feels” on that day, accompanied with a hidden tone of “how dare you think I will even read this from you!!!” I have many examples, in the form of emails that I have received, which show how unprofessional some editors are. They just copy and paste a template statement and reject your paper. I wish they would outline the reasons for rejection, give constructive suggestions on how to improve the manuscript, and suggest alternate journal names as far as possible.

These are some of the frustrations faced by early career researchers in Jordan. I wonder: Are these problems real, or are we just unlucky? And do researchers from western countries or the USA face similar problems? I’d love to know!

In a move to reinforce its long standing support towards data sharing, Nature has announced a new policy mandating data-availability statements. From this month onwards, all papers accepted for publication in Nature and 12 other Nature titles will be required to provide a statement reporting whether and how the underlying data in the study can be accessed.

Authors will need to provide information about the availability of the ‘minimal data set’ required to interpret, replicate, and build on the results reported in the study. These include details of publicly archived data sets that have been used or generated during the study. In exceptional cases where the data cannot be made available due to privacy issues or third party control, the data statement must clarify this. The new policy also encourages the practice of citing data sets in the reference list, just as published papers are cited, and data sets with Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are preferred. 

The announcement came after a successful trial of the policy at five Nature journals  — Nature Cell Biology, Nature Communications, Nature Geoscience, Nature Neuroscience and Nature Physics — earlier this year. It is now expected to be adopted by all Nature journals by early 2017. With the entire science community gradually embracing data sharing, this policy could be an effective way of ensuring compliance to public data archiving and data sharing mandates. 

As researchers or graduate/doctoral students, have you ever encountered journal or university guidelines recommending that when preparing your manuscripts, you should follow the Chicago Manual of Style? Or Scientific Style and Format?

If you have struggled to use these universally recognized author resources and want to better understand how to use them effectively, Editage Insights has the right opportunity for you.

We will soon host a video prepared by experts from The University of Chicago Press, who will explain what the Chicago Manual of Style covers, how to navigate the site and use it effectively for your benefit, and what Scientific Style and Format contains. They will also talk about free trials and subscriptions.

And here’s where it gets better: You can send them any questions you have beforehand, and they will try and address them in the video itself.

Have a question? Don’t wait! Submit it now! This survey closes on September 22.

The recipients of the 2016 Lasker Awards were announced by Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation on 13 September. The Lasker Awards are among the most prestigious annual prizes in medicine. This year, the awards honored major discoveries in physiology and virology, and the work of a scientist who has been promoting science education. Also referred to as “America’s Nobels,” the prizes honor the extraordinary contributions of scientists, physicians, and public servants towards the understanding and treatment of diseases with a prize of $250,000. Lasker laureates garner considerable attention from the scientific community and media since many recipients of this award have eventually become Nobel laureates.

The details of this year’s winners are as follows:

The Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award

William G. Kaelin, Peter J. Ratcliffe, Gregg L. Semenza

These three physician-scientists shared this award for furthering the understanding of how organisms respond to variations in oxygen. Precisely, their “discovery of the pathway by which cells from humans and most animals sense and adapt to changes in oxygen availability – a process essential for survival” was honored by the foundation.

The Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award

Ralf F.W. Bartenschlager, Charles M. Rice, Michael J. Sofia

The work of these scientists has helped in developing the first successful treatment for hepatitis C. They shared the award for developing “a system to study the replication of the virus that causes hepatitis C and for use of this system to revolutionize the treatment of this chronic, often lethal disease.”

The Lasker-Koshland Special Achievement Award in Medical Science

Bruce M. Alberts

Alberts was chosen to receive this award not only for his research in DNA but also for his attempts at reforming science education globally. His “fundamental discoveries in DNA replication and protein biochemistry; for visionary leadership in directing national and international scientific organizations to better people’s lives; and for passionate dedication to improving education in science and mathematics” led to his winning the award.  

Congratulations to all the winners!

A postdoctoral position generally brings with it a lot of unanticipated challenges, and often, researchers find it very difficult to cope with them because they are unprepared. Moreover, if researchers are unable to convert their postdoc into a tenure track position, it only adds to their grief. To keep you motivated, we have come up with 8 rhymes about not only surviving the postdoc life but also thriving in it. You can also download and share a PDF version of these rhymes (scroll down). What are you waiting for? Seize the day and prepare to sail your way through your postdoc! Good luck! 

• Designed by Jayashree Rajagopalan
• Inspired by the post 10 Survival strategies for the postdoc life by Kakoli Majumder

Want more advice? Head on to our specialized series of resources on career advancement for PhDs and postdocs.

Peer Review Week is a global event that aims to celebrate the peer review process and focus on those involved in reviewing activity at various levels: journal publishing, research grants, promotion and tenure committees, conferences submissions, and so on. The theme of this year’s event—which will run from September 19-25, 2016—is Recognition for Review. This theme is aligned with current discussions and debates in the scholarly publishing community about the need to recognize, reward, or incentivize peer reviewers for their services.

Editage Insights and Peer Review Week 2016

At Editage Insights, we understand and appreciate the role peer review plays in the dissemination of scientific findings, and we are proud to support and participate in Peer Review Week 2016. Here is what we will be doing during the week:

• Editage Insights resources on the Peer Review Week website: Access our peer review related resources from the Reviewer Resources section on the Peer Review Week website. Here’s a snapshot to help you identify them:

• Free webinar for peer reviewers: We are hosting a free webinar for peer reviewers to help them understand how reviews can be made more meaningful and sensitive for authors. If you are a peer reviewer or an editor, this webinar is for you!

• Exclusive quotes from authors and industry experts: To understand the views of industry experts and authors, we asked them to share their thoughts about peer review and recognition of review and will share their messages during the week. In addition, we will publish thought-provoking posts and a compelling video about peer review.

Join or follow the event: Peer Review Week is free and open to all. Here’s how you can join:

• Visit the Peer Review week website here.
• Join our free webinar on peer review.
• Follow the hashtags #EditageInsights, #PeerRevWk16, and #RecognizeReview on Twitter.
• Share Editage Insights peer review resources on your social media pages.
• Download (for free) and share Peer Review Week logos and flyers from the event website.
• What are your thoughts on recognition for peer review? Share your views with us below.

More about Peer Review Week: Last year, a group of organizations came together to set up a global event that would focus on peer review and enable sustained discussions about it. This is the second year of Peer Review Week and the organizing committee includes a number of publishers, organizations, and institutions such as ORCID, ScienceOpen, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation), Sense About Science, Wiley, Springer Nature, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

What are you waiting for? Join Peer Review Week 2016 now!

Peer review is one of the mainstays of scholarly publishing. Most academics concede that there is no substitute for peer review and that it is the gold standard for research assessment. Peer review feedback has often been behind excellent scientific publications. Researchers take up the task of reviewing papers voluntarily over and above their own regular workload. Despite this, lab heads or the institutions with which researchers are affiliated are not known to appreciate or encourage their contribution to science. The reviewers also do not receive any monetary compensation for reviewing – everything is pro bono. Recently, the primary premise of discussions concerning peer review is about incentivizing peer review, acknowledging reviewers, and making their contribution count. While pondering over this issue, a question stuck me: Is being a peer reviewer a kind of recognition in itself? Do we still need to consider acknowledging peer reviewers more tangibly?

Journal editors select peer reviewers for their knowledge of a particular field. Thus peer reviewers are perceived as experts and being associated with prestigious journals as peer reviewer is considered an accomplishment for any researcher. Therefore, being asked to do a peer review equates to being recognized as an expert and is one of the keys to a researcher’s professional advancement. Many researchers aspire to become reviewers for this prestige. To explore the global perceptions on peer review, Taylor & Francis conducted a study in which 7438 individuals (including authors, reviewers, and editors) participated. According to the findings of this study, over two-thirds of the participating authors reported that they were never contacted for reviewing but would love to receive an invitation to peer review.

But why should researchers do peer review for academic journals? Being a part of the research community, having advanced access to the latest research, and expanding personal skills and knowledge are possibly the major motivational factors for undertaking reviewing. Further, the Taylor & Francis report revealed that authors between the age group of 20-29 believed that becoming peer reviewers would enhance their reputation and advance their career. This indicates that most researchers, particularly early career researchers, regard peer review as very rewarding and as a way of gaining global recognition.

Despite the fact that many young researchers await the opportunity of becoming peer reviewers, journal editors frequently voice the challenge of finding reviewers who are willing to take on the task and complete it within stipulated timelines. This could be because journal editors usually build a pool of trusted reviewers and may be unwilling to look beyond this pool; or, they may lack the time to look for new reviewers. To make the peer review process smoother, editors should attempt to expand this pool. Whether journal editors consider young researchers (high-quality researchers who are not too old in the system) when thinking of potential reviewers is unclear. But it does seem as though, typically, the more experienced researchers (who may be prone to reject review requests) are invited to peer review and the early-career researcher group that is eager to contribute is ignored. Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Peerage of Science, which provides scientific peer review and publishing service, says that, “several journal editors (unofficially) say they prefer to solicit reviews from postdocs rather than from the most senior scientists.” Reinforcing the view that researchers equate being a peer reviewer to gaining recognition, Seppänen explains that early career researchers are aware of the fact that becoming a reviewer would add value to their CV and could help in securing grants or jobs in the future. Hence, they are more likely to accept review invitations, provide timely reviews, and are more thorough in their work.

Peer reviewing is one of the core tasks of researchers through which they can showcase their knowledge and insights. It can also help them connect with established researchers in their field and increase their global visibility. So journals and publishers should consider approaching younger talent for peer reviews. Identifying the need to incentivize peer review, publishers such as Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute and Nature Publishing Group offer various inducements to reviewers—e.g., acknowledgement letters, discounts on publication charges, public acknowledgement in journals—in addition to collaborating with platforms like Publons that maintain a record of the reviews. It might be true that researchers expect rewards beyond acknowledgement for their work, but recognition remains a strong motivational factor behind accepting invitations to review. Climbing the ladder of success in academia is not an easy task and being identified as a peer reviewer is one way for researchers to increase their visibility, credibility, and reputation. 

Recommended reading:

Series: Tips for first time reviewers

The peer review process: challenges and progress

Peer reviewing: a thankless job or a duty to the academic community?

The Annals of Improbable Research, a science humor magazine, announced on September 22, the winners of the 2016 Ig Nobel Prizes. Since 1991, these prizes honor the most unusual and imaginative achievements “that make people LAUGH, and then THINK.” The Ig Nobel Prize winners are handed over the prize by Nobel Prize winners in an elaborate ceremony.

The prizes handed out this year are listed below:

1. Reproduction Prize

The late Ahmed Shafik was honored for “studying the effects of wearing polyester, cotton, or wool trousers on the sex life of rats, and for conducting similar tests with human males.”

2. Economics Prize

For “assessing the perceived personalities of rocks, from a sales and marketing perspective,” Mark Avis, Sarah Forbes, and Shelagh Ferguson were awarded this prize.

3. Physics Prize

Gábor Horváth, Miklós Blahó, György Kriska, Ramón Hegedüs, Balázs Gerics, Róbert Farkas, Susanne Åkesson, Péter Malik, and Hansruedi Wildermuth were recognized for “discovering why white-haired horses are the most horsefly-proof horses, and for discovering why dragonflies are fatally attracted to black tombstones.”

4. Chemistry Prize

Volkswagen received the prize for “solving the problem of excessive automobile pollution emissions by automatically, electromechanically producing fewer emissions whenever the cars are being tested.”

5. Medicine Prize

“If you have an itch on the left side of your body, you can relieve it by looking into a mirror and scratching the right side of your body (and vice versa).” This research by Christoph Helmchen, Carina Palzer, Thomas Münte, Silke Anders, and Andreas Sprenger was awarded the Ig Nobel Prize.

6. Psychology Prize

The research conducted by Evelyne Debey, Maarten De Schryver, Gordon Logan, Kristina Suchotzki, and Bruno Verschuere was awarded the prize “for asking a thousand liars how often they lie, and for deciding whether to believe those answers.”

7. Peace Prize

Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek Koehler, and Jonathan Fugelsang were honored for their scholarly study called "On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit".

8. Biology Prize

Charles Foster and Thomas Thwaites received the award jointly, “for living in the wild as, at different times, a badger, an otter, a deer, a fox, and a bird;” and “for creating prosthetic extensions of his limbs that allowed him to move in the manner of, and spend time roaming hills in the company of, goats” respectively.

9. Literature Prize

Fredrik Sjöberg’s “three-volume autobiographical work about the pleasures of collecting flies that are dead, and flies that are not yet dead” was honored with this prize.

10. Perception Prize   

Atsuki Higashiyama and Kohei Adachi received the prize “for investigating whether things look different when you bend over and view them between your legs.”

Congratulations to all the winners!

In the pursuit of success in academia, early career researchers are always on the lookout for opportunities to showcase their knowledge, skills, and mettle. One of the key steps in the climb to academic success is that of becoming a peer reviewer. How can reviewing help a young researcher’s career progression? How can a researcher become a peer reviewer? This post will provide answers to these questions along with many helpful tips for those early career researchers who aspire to become reviewers.

Let us begin with the most important question: Why would a novice researcher want to become a peer reviewer? Being identified as a peer reviewer amounts to being accepted as an expert in the field, and this can add significant value to an early career researcher’s resume and reputation. It is a kind of recognition in itself to be known as a peer reviewer, and this can be a stepping stone for novice researchers. Apart from this, reviewers have the opportunity to be on top of the developments in their field and expand their knowledge. It is vital for a young researcher to expand his/her network, and becoming a peer reviewer offers a great opportunity to interact with journal editors and fellow researchers in the field. As a result,, many early career researchers and postdoctoral researchers look forward to receiving invitations for conducting peer review.

1. Publish papers

Publishing high quality papers is perhaps the most logical and obvious way of getting noticed as an accomplished researcher. Having a strong repertoire of well-written papers is likely to attract the attention of editors looking for reviewers. In fact, editors of the journals you frequently publish in are highly likely to consider you when they receive papers written on similar topics. Even researchers working in the same field as yours might recommend you as a suggested reviewer. When you keep publishing good papers, it conveys to the editors that you are familiar with the current trends and professional standards in your field. Also, having a good number of citations can add to your visibility and credibility. Remember to use good keywords and titles for your papers so that editors using indexing services of databases such as PubMed come across your publications.

2. Approach your mentor or supervisor

Your mentor or supervisor can be of immense help if you want to progress from being an author to a reviewer. Since they are in touch with editors, they can help by putting in a word for you or even put you in touch with the relevant people. Moreover, if your supervisor happens to be an editor, he/she may consider you for reviews if you show interest. Another benefit in this case is that your mentor might be able to provide you with tips and guidance on how to review, which can be of great help to budding reviewers in the absence of any formal training.

3. Be proactive in contacting journal editors

Rather than waiting for journal editors to find you, you can take the bold step of approaching editors and expressing an interest in reviewing. When attending conferences, you can talk to editors who are associated with journals in your field. Editors are interested in getting fresh perspectives; thus, showing them your willingness may land you the position of a co-reviewer or even an independent reviewer. Alternatively, you can write e-mails to editors explaining to them your intention of serving as a reviewer. Do not forget to provide some background about yourself and your publication record in this written communication. But before you do this, do go through the journal guidelines for peer reviewers to understand the basic requirements and expectations from peer reviewers.

4. Try other avenues of peer reviewing

Peer reviewing in journals is not the only way of entering this arena. Many journals such as F1000Research and platforms such as PubMed have adopted for post-publication peer review, which means registered users can freely comment on published articles. This could be a good avenue for young career researchers to practice their reviewing skills by sharing constructive comments. It could also be an excellent platform to engage in discussions with other junior or senior researchers. An important consideration here is that many reviewers on platforms such as these prefer to remain anonymous. Thus, you may have to decide whether you want to share your details or maintain anonymity. Another way of honing your reviewing skills is writing articles blogs or journals that critique published works.

Journal editors are always looking to expand their pool of reviewers. Moreover, many of them prefer to recruit young career researchers since they are more likely to accept invitations, are more thorough with their work since they are eager to prove themselves, and are more likely to provide honest opinions. So seize your chance at climbing up a step and becoming a peer reviewer, but also bear in mind the responsibilities that becoming a reviewer brings with it.     

You might also be interested in reading this series: Tips for first time peer reviewers