In this Q&A, Cell Press Community Review Product Manager Matt Pavlovich talks to George Burslem, Dan Larson, Susanne Lens, and Victor Greiff about their experience reviewing manuscripts submitted to Community Review. These scientists share their thoughts on Community Review and other emerging peer review paradigms.

BACKGROUND: Despite an interest in the editorial process at biomedical journals, not much information is available on this topic.
OBJECTIVE: To study the characteristics of the submissions to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) and analyze the editorial and peer-review process and factors influencing the final outcome.
METHODS: Retrospective review of the manuscripts submitted to the IJDVL from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2016.
RESULTS: The IJDVL received 639 manuscripts during the study period, most being Case reports (35%), Research articles (30%), and Letters to editor (20%). The proportion of submissions from Indian (53%) and foreign (47%) authors was comparable. About 55% (n = 353/639) of the submissions were editorially rejected. Some of the common reasons for editorial rejection included \"sub-optimal images,\" \"no novelty,\" \"incomplete information or results,\" and \"incorrect diagnosis or interpretation of results.\" The acceptance rate during this period was 19%. The median number of days to reach the final decision was 14 days for editorial rejection, 146 days for acceptance, and 85 days for rejection after external peer-review. The acceptance rates were higher for submissions from Indian authors [odds ratio (OR) 1.96], those submitted as Letters (OR 2.06), or in the area of tropical infections (OR 2.17). Submissions as research articles (expB = 1.23), those from Indian authors (expB = 1.15), final decision being acceptance (expB = 1.56), and those requiring preliminary author revisions (expB = 3.34), external re-reviews (expB = 2.22), and repeated author re-revisions (expB = 2.34) were associated with longer times to reach final decision.
CONCLUSIONS: A relatively short study period of 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The IJDVL attracts submissions both from India and abroad. Articles submitted in the Letters category or related to tropical infections were most likely to be accepted. There is scope for improving the time taken for editorial processing of manuscripts.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of the study was to evaluate and categorize the decline-to-review response to a manuscript review invitation that would allow American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) editorial staff to improve the peer review process and to reduce manuscript turnaround time. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective analysis included 9366 decline-to-review responses received by AJR editorial staff between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017 (a 3-year period). The responses were sorted into six broad categories: no reason given, reviewer was overcommitted (with academic or personal commitments), manuscript was not in an area of the reviewer\'s expertise, the reviewer had already committed to a simultaneous AJR manuscript review, the reviewer claimed a conflict of interest, and miscellaneous and otherwise not listed reasons. RESULTS. The 9366 declined reviews were declined according to six general categories: no reason (3251, 34.7%), overcommitted (4629, 49.4%), not an area of expertise (1181, 12.6%), simultaneous AJR manuscript review (235, 2.5%), conflict of interest (55, 0.6%), and miscellaneous (15, 0.2%). CONCLUSION. The analyzed data provide a valuable insight for AJR editorial staff and reviewers to further improve the peer review process. The results and subsequent actions could help to reduce decline-to-review responses, which will help shorten the manuscript turnaround time and contribute to a timely decision on manuscripts for authors.

Traditional peer review remains the gold standard for assessing the merit of scientific scholarship for publication. Challenges to this model include reliance on volunteer contributions of individuals with self-reported expertise; lack of sufficient mentoring and training of new reviewers; and the isolated, noncollaborative nature of individual reviewer processes.The authors participated in an Association of American Medical Colleges peer-review workshop in November 2015 and were intrigued by the process of group peer review. Subsequent discussions led to shared excitement about exploring this model further. The authors worked with the staff and editors of Academic Medicine to perform a group review of 4 submitted manuscripts, documenting their iterative process and analysis of outcomes, to define an optimal approach to performing group peer review.Individual recommendations for each manuscript changed as a result of the group review process. The group process led to more comprehensive reviews than each individual reviewer would have submitted independently. The time spent on group reviews decreased as the process became more refined. Recommendations aligned with journal editor findings. Shared operating principles were identified, as well as clear benefits of group peer review for reviewers, authors, and journal editors.The authors plan to continue to refine and codify an effective process for group peer review. They also aim to more formally evaluate the model, with inclusion of feedback from journal editors and authors, and to compare feedback from group peer reviews versus individual reviewer feedback. Finally, models for expansion of the group-peer-review process are proposed.

Vitiligo is a pigmentary disorder characterizing by white macules due to loss of melanocytes. Vitiligo affects about 1 to 4% of people around the world. The treatment of vitiligo has a high cost and the long process of treatment in spite of no complete remedy. It has various psychological side-effects such as depression and anxiety affecting the quality of life seriously. Avicenna in his Canon treated these patients over a thousand years ago. This study aimed to introduce some herbal drugs in vitiligo based on the Canon of Avicenna besides the conventional medical treatments.
This is a review study, according to the Canon with the term Baras and also searching through the electronic websites with the keywords vitiligo, treatment, and herbal drugs.
The study found some herbs affecting the vitiligo from the Canon.
The researchers suggest conducting clinical trials on the patients with vitiligo based on the Canon besides the conventional techniques to obtain a better result in the treatment.

To identify and characterize the reasons manuscripts are rejected after peer review from the journal Headache.
Numerous editorials, reviews, and research manuscripts have been published on the topic of manuscript rejection. However, few of these papers evaluate the reasons for rejection after peer review systematically. None are specific to the field of neurology or headache medicine.
A retrospective analysis of all submissions to Headache from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was performed. Peer reviewer and editor comments for each manuscript were reviewed, and unlimited reasons for rejection were coded for each manuscript. Detailed reasons for rejection were then grouped into 9 broader categories.
A total of 784 submissions were received from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 336 were immediately rejected and 434 went on to peer review. During this period, the overall rejection rate was 62.6% and the rejection rate after peer review was 35.7%. The 6 most common reasons for rejection after peer review were: flaws in methodology and study design, poor reporting of methodology, poor statistical analysis, overstatement of conclusions, problems with covariates or outcomes, and problems with the control or case group.
Flaws in methodology and study design were the most common reasons for rejection after peer review from Headache between 2014-2016.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。