Answer for 'Review of manuscript'

A 36-year-old male with clinical and genetic diagnose of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer syndrome (HLRCC) also known as Reed syndrome (p.Arg233Cys pathogenic variant in FH gen, associated with HLRCC), consulted for a 6 years' history of multiple painful lesions in his back. In physical examination multiple skin-color papules arranged in plaques in scapular area and lumbar region were observed (Figure 1B–D). Screening for associated neoplasm showed no malignancy, including an abdominal MRI for RCC screening with subsequently annual MRI. Skin biopsy was performed showing a non-encapsulated tumor composed of bundles of smooth muscle arranged in an interlacing pattern, compatible with cutaneous leiomyoma (Figure 1A). Treatment with oral analgesics was not effective. Due to persistence of intense pain, we performed an intralesional botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection, 2 IU per lesion (12 lesions were treated from 0.4 to 1.2 cm) after reconstitution of 100 BTA IU vial in 5 ml of saline serum 0.9% (20 IU/ml). We performed an intradermal injection with a 30G needle. The technique was well tolerated, with only mild pain reported, and immediate pain relief was achieved, with very little episodes in the following 2 months, with progressive loss of efficacy. Treatment has been repeated every 3 months for 1.5 years maintaining an excellent response. Leiomyomas are the most common smooth muscle tumors. Cutaneous leiomyomas (CLM) are divided into three categories: piloleiomyomas (arising from the arrector pili muscle), genital leiomyomas, and angioleiomyomas.1 CLM may occur sporadically or in association with renal cell cancer in an autosomal dominant with incomplete penetrance disorder called HLRCC. It is characterized by multiple CLM, uterine leiomyomas and increase risk of renal cell carcinoma. Clinically, CLM are characterized by solitary or multiple flesh-color, erythematous or hyperpigmented firm papules, generally smaller than 1.5 cm that may be clustered in plaques. Around 90% of CLM are reported to be painful.2 Pain may be triggered spontaneously or in response to cold, trauma, emotional stress or mild touch and may affect severely the quality of life.3 Pain mechanism associated with CLM is unclear. It may be related to augmented neuropeptide release (such as calcitonine gene-related peptide, involved in pain conduction), pressure on nerve fibers within the lesions4 or for the contraction of the arrector pili muscle.5 Surgery is the gold standard treatment (even its high rate of recurrence after excision). However, multiple lesions or poor aesthetic results may be a limitation to a surgical approach. In these cases CO2 ablation laser, cryotherapy, or intralesional BTA injection has shown some efficacy in pain relief. BTA has been used in the management of several chronic pain syndromes.6 It is a neuropeptide which blocks the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction resulting in decreased muscle tone, even in smooth muscle, reducing muscle spasms. BTA may also inhibits the release of pain related neuropeptides including substance P, CGRP, and glutamate, resulting in the inhibition of peripheral sensibilization.7 BTA has been reported to be effective in two case reports of treatment of CLM in HLRCC,8, 9 with injection of 5–20 units per lesion with a decrease of pain intensity and frequency of attacks between 1 month8 and 3 months9 after injection, with progressive relapse and need of repeated treatments. Naik et al.5 presents the only randomized trial in CLM management including 18 patients, half of them received placebo and the other half received intralesional BTA intralesional (5 units per cm2). They reported statistical improvement in the skin related quality of life and in the specific skin-pain related question on DLQI as well as a non-statistically significant improvement in pain at rest and pain severity. In conclusion, treatment of CLM, especially when they are painful, may be challenging. If surgery is not an option due to its extension or poor aesthetic results, intralesional BTA is a safe and effective treatment for associated pain, maintaining its efficacy over repeated treatments. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. David Vega Díez has made significant contribution to literature search, data acquisition, manuscript preparation, and manuscript editing. Ana Rodríguez-Villa Lario has made significant contribution to concept, design, manuscript review, and guarantor. Marta González Cañete has made significant contribution to data acquisition, manuscript preparation, and manuscript review. María Dolores Vélez-Velazquez has made significant contribution to concepts, histological examination, definition of intellectual content, and manuscript review. Isabel Polo Rodríguez has made significant contribution to concepts, definition of intellectual content, design, and manuscript preparation and review. Susana Medina has made significant contribution to concepts, definition of intellectual content, design, and manuscript preparation and review. Written informed consent from the patients for the use of image and publication of their case details has been obtained by the authors. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Convalescent plasma therapy for persistent hepatitis E virus infection

Description This article is designed to introduce the novice researcher to the process of journal selection, manuscript submission and manuscript review. PubMed indexing, journal readership, scope, focus, impact factor, fees and acceptable manuscript types are discussed in the first section. The remainder of this article focuses on manuscript preparation, submission and review, including formatting, pre-submission inquiry, submission portals, and the manuscript review process. Specific recommendations are provided to assist the reader in navigating these stages.

Editor's Report for 2000

Robert G. Sheiman, MD When I began reviewing manuscripts for Radiology some years ago, I would occasionally come across a scientific paper that potentially put forth a unique message or advancement but for which the important takehome message was almost impossible to extract due to the manuscript’s construction. I would conclude that either the authors had never been exposed to formal scientific writing methods or there was potentially a senior author or mentor whose input on manuscript construction was lacking or unheeded. I always believed that creation of a publishable manuscript depended not only on sound science but also on an understanding of the manuscript review process. The literature contains many works that formally detail the manuscript review process (1–3). The utility of such publications is supported by evidence that formal didactic training and knowledge of defined criteria for manuscript review have a positive impact on review quality (4,5). In the work by Schroter et al (5), manuscript reviewers either attended a formal workshop or were given a self-teaching training package. Both forms of education focused on what a journal editor looked for in a manuscript reviewer, as well as how to critique a manuscript. Immediately after training, manuscript review quality was higher in both groups compared with a control group (those receiving no formal review training). Of interest, the benefits from training were not seen after 6 months. Such findings indicate the importance of training for manuscript review but also raise the question of the need for long-term training of individuals who wish to perform manuscript review. Reviewer age also seems to play a part in the quality of manuscript review. Kliewer et al (6,7) tried to identify attributes that can predict a reviewer’s assessment of a scientific work. They found older reviewers with more experience tended to assign a lower score for overall manuscript importance. These authors felt that perhaps older reviewers favor manuscripts more in accord with their own views while younger reviewers seem to be more open-minded. This finding is also echoed by others (8,9) who quantitatively found that younger reviewers and those of more junior academic rank have the potential to produce more incisive and thoughtful reviews compared with their older and seasoned colleagues. Indirect support that younger individuals are more open-minded and less biased when performing a review also comes from the work of Ernst and Resch (10). In studying a reviewer’s assessment of a fictitious scientific paper that was focused on the reviewer’s field of expertise, it was found that a reviewer’s own concepts and bias affected how he or she judged the manuscript. Since, as stated by Lee Rogers, “Good reviewers make good journals” (11), how can we at Radiology identify those individuals with great potential as manuscript reviewers? Clearly, a continuous training process of younger individuals makes sense and can help identify those individuals who hold great promise as reviewers. Where can we find such individuals? Radiology residency programs across the country are an excellent source of eager young individuals who are more than willing to educate themselves and advance our field. In September 2006, we implemented at our institution a reviewer mentorship program that we hope will help identify individuals interested in becoming manuscript reviewers for the long term. The large number of Radiology associate editors to function as mentors within our radiology department afforded us acceleration of the process and ongoing program refinement. The program is now formally referred to as the Radiological Published online 10.1148/radiol.2443070830

This has been a year of high activity for the Journal. With the cooperation and joint efforts of the authors, section editors, editorial board members, and reviewers, the Journal has experienced a period of improvement in volume and quality. Major Advancements Under the leadership of President Gerson Rosenberg and the 2004–2005 Board of Trustees, three major advancements have been achieved: (1) the launching of an online editorial management system, (2) the addition of a Pediatrics Section to the areas covered by the Journal, and (3) the inclusion of a historical article in each issue. Editorial Management System Publisher Lippincott, Wilkins and Williams provided access and training for an online editorial management system which was launched April 20, 2004. All aspects of manuscript management can now be performed online—from submission by authors, through the review process, to release to publication. The system provides excellent capability for compiling and reporting statistical data. New Pediatrics Section By invitation, Managing Editor, Betty Littleton, attended the First International Conference on Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Perfusion, held in Hershey, PA, May 19–22, 2005. Editor, Jay Zwischenberger, and conference organizers, Drs. Gerson Rosenberg and Akif Undar, from Penn State University College of Medicine, had discussed and decided that introduction of a Pediatric Circulatory Support and Cardiopulmonary Perfusion Section could be facilitated through the review and publication of manuscripts developed by conference participants. The entire September–October 2005 issue of the Journal was devoted to Pediatric articles. This section will add a new dimension to the scope of the ASAIO Journal and, hopefully, generate new members and subscriptions. Dr. Akif Undar has graciously agreed to serve as Section Editor for Pediatrics. Historical Manuscripts Through the efforts of Mark Kurusz, CCP, UTMB, Coordinator for Project Bionics, we are publishing historical articles of interest to ASAIO readers in each issue of the Journal. Mark has contacted ASAIO members as well as other groups to solicit manuscripts. Manuscript Review Process The ASAIO Journal is extremely fortunate to have such a strong complement of people assisting with the review of manuscripts. The editors and reviewers have helped tremendously by completing timely and thorough reviews. While review turnaround time improved greatly after initiating communication by e-mail, it is expected to be further facilitated by the online system. In most cases, we are getting a response to the authors within about 2 months. Tracking the reviews is much simpler, and we will be able to determine productivity for each reviewer. There is always room for more reviewers, and we encourage all members to participate in this vital function.Figure: Joseph B. Zwischenberger, MD, EditorSolicitation of Manuscripts Efforts continue with regard to solicitation of manuscripts with various groups being contacted by the editorial office. The 2005 ASAIO abstract presenters were contacted and encouraged to submit manuscripts, a number of which appear in this issue of the Journal. At the Journal meeting during the Conference, Section Editors were charged with the responsibility of soliciting manuscripts within their respective sections. Future Direction Traditionally, the ASAIO Journal has published manuscripts which may be somewhat immature and preliminary but contain a kernel of innovation in the research reported. As the number of submissions continues to increase, some thought must be given to the scope of the Journal and the criteria for accepting manuscripts. While we want to continue to provide a voice for a somewhat unique group of researchers, the integrity of the Journal must be upheld. Over the next year, our editors and reviewers will be working to formulate guidelines which will preserve the essence of the Journal while improving quality. Members are encouraged to offer comments in this regard.

The Times, They Are Changing Again

The quality of a scientific journal is, in a major way, a reflection of the quality and dedication of its reviewers (2). Having both a knowledge of the literature and expertise in the subject matter and research methods, the reviewer provides valuable information for us regarding the importance of a manuscript, its science, and the new information contained therein. Our dedicated reviewers take seriously the task at hand and are asked to return the review within a reasonable time frame (3 weeks allotted). Such timely return allows us to maintain a reasonable time to first decision for the manuscript (average time to first decision, 34 days as of our most recent data, decreased from 54 days in 1998) and a reasonable time to publication, although the latter depends in a substantial way on the time taken by the author to revise the manuscript. Some authors return a revised manuscript within 3–4 weeks, while others may take months to revise their manuscripts. We must maintain a balance between timeliness and quality, both of which authors value. Once that balance is achieved, it is hoped that authors will submit their best work to that journal, taking pride in both the quality of their publication and the journal in which it appears. Shortly after I was appointed Editor, a number of reviewers contacted me to inquire whether I would provide guidelines for reviewing. My response was that I would, but first I needed to accumulate experience to determine what, in fact, would be the most helpful review for me when rendering a decision on a manuscript. In the meantime, the system in place and used by my predecessor had been working well, so it seemed prudent to continue the same. In my 3rd year as Editor, I did offer guidelines for reviewing (1), guidelines that I am now updating with this communication. Once again, I stress the following: First, we at Radiology are fortunate to have a large cadre of outstanding reviewers. They have provided us their insights and dedicated service for many years, and we look forward to their continued service in the years to come. Second, I realize that many reviewers have their own preferred styles of reviewing and acknowledge that those varied styles have been of immense help to me over the past years. One can become a reviewer for Radiology in several ways, some of which include invitation by the Editor, recommendation by a member of the Radiology Editorial Board, recommendation by a current Radiology peer reviewer, and request from the individual indicating his or her interest in becoming a peer reviewer. When an individual is added to our database of peer reviewers, he or she will initially function on several occasions as an “extra” peer reviewer (trial period) for a manuscript that is also being reviewed in routine fashion by our more experienced peer reviewers. A reviewer of a manuscript receives the comments of the other reviewers of that manuscript so as to be aware of the comments made by all reviewers. Peer reviewers are evaluated by the Editor for their timeliness, and their comments are compared with those made by other peer reviewers of the same manuscript. Editor’s Recognition Awards are given yearly on the basis of those evaluations and comparisons. Category I continuing medical education credit is also given if requested by the reviewer (see below). Since we use a double-blinded peer review system, reviewers are not made aware of the identity of the authors. Published online 10.1148/radiol.2441070689

The Anonymous American Idol Manuscript Reviewer

Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing

Reply to RC2: 'Review of manuscript' of nhess-2020-299

From “hot type” to Evise: A 50-year career in journal editing

Exposure to dog allergens is almost impossible to avoid, as dogs are part of our society and frequently encountered both outdoors and indoors. This poses problems to individuals allergic to dogs, a common condition with reported sensitization rates around 20% 1 . It is therefore crucial to increase our understanding on how dog allergens spread in the environment and on exposure by inhalation.

COVID-19 and lymphangioleiomyomatosis: Experience at a reference center and the potential impact of the use of mTOR inhibitors.

SLEEP IS THE OFFICIAL BIOMEDICAL JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONAL SLEEP SOCIETIES (APSS), A JOINT VENTURE OF THE AMERICAN Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The APSS Board of Directors and the Editors of the journal are committed to ethical integrity and professionalism in scientific reporting. SLEEP has a comprehensive policy on Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication that is based on the leading ethical standards for the conduct and publication of science.1–4 The policy provides detailed ethical guidelines for virtually all aspects of manuscript preparation, submission, review, publication, citation, and use. These formal ethical standards and procedures have been used to ensure that a wide range of issues were handled appropriately in the past 4 years (e.g., attestation of authorship, conflicts of interest, manuscript withdrawal, etc.). The standards are updated regularly to ensure they meet the latest recommendations of the U.S. National Institutes of Health3 and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).4 One area that continues to evolve and that affects virtually every manuscript submitted to SLEEP is the issue of disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest. Science requires objectivity of observation and honesty in reporting, both of which depend upon an ethical commitment to intellectual rigor and freedom from bias. Science is costly, and investments in it are squandered when bias and doubt pervade the integrity of either scientific methods or scientific reporting. Consequently, deciding what constitutes bias, and under what conditions a significant risk of bias may be present from a conflict of interest, have been major focuses in the ethics of science and scientific reporting during the past decade. ICMJE states that “conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties).”4 All authors of a manuscript and all those involved in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Among the most important points to be aware of regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest in scientific publications are that: 1) conflicts of interest may be potential, or perceived, or factual; 2) conflicts must be disclosed regardless of whether they are potential, perceived, or factual; and 3) conflicts are neither inherently wrong nor an admission of wrongdoing, but rather intended to fully inform readers. Consequently, authors should disclose all potential conflicts of interest, whether or not some of them are seen as irrelevant by the authors. When someone knowingly fails to clearly and accurately disclose a potentially significant conflict of interest, it can compromise the integrity of the science reported. It is recognized that conflicts of interest are perhaps inevitable in today's highly competitive and demanding research environment in which investigators often face competing obligations and interests. The U.S. National Institutes of Health Office of Research Integrity document observes that “Researchers are expected to serve on committees, to train young researchers, to teach, and to review grants and manuscripts at the same time they pursue their own research. Conflicts of interest cannot and need not be avoided. However, in three crucial areas: financial gain, work commitments, and intellectual and personal matters, special steps are needed to assure that conflicts do not interfere with the responsible practice of research.”3 Foremost among these special steps is disclosure, especially of financial conflicts of interest, which have been at the center of many of the scandals regarding the credibility of scientific reports. SLEEP's current conflict of interest disclosure policy primarily focuses on significant financial conflicts of interest, because these are among the most pervasive sources of influence in sleep research and sleep medicine, and they are seen as particularly important to disclose to readers. “Significant financial interest” is defined as anything of monetary value.5 This disclosure policy applies to all areas of sleep research (basic and human experimental research, clinical trials, population science, etc.). It applies to all sources of private financial influence (pharmaceuticals, therapeutic devices, monitoring and measurement technologies, diagnostic devices, etc.). It applies to all types of personal financial gain (industry grants, patents, copyrights, royalties, equity of any kind, unrestricted gifts, educational stipends, employment, salary support, development fees, advisory positions, consulting, paid lectures, honoraria, travel, accommodations, etc.). Importantly, disclosure includes the financial interests of all authors and their immediate family members when conflicts of interest involve them.2–4 Prospective authors are required to complete the Conflict of Interest form for SLEEP when a manuscript is submitted. If it is uncertain whether a potential conflict of interest exists, authors are encouraged to report it nonetheless. Substantive changes to the disclosure must be reported as they occur between the time of initial manuscript submission and its publication. Disclosures are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the journal staff. The disclosed information is listed within the article, but dollar amounts are not included. SLEEP now follows the guidelines of the ICMJE, which state that “Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions”4 and for judging manuscripts. Beginning in 2010, authors are also required to explicitly highlight in their disclosure statements, connections between what is disclosed and what they are reporting scientifically. For example, when an author of a report on a pharmaceutical agent or a therapeutic device discloses consulting for multiple companies, the author must also state clearly in the disclosure of the manuscript which (if any) of these companies manufactures and/or markets the drug or devise studied in the publication. Currently readers cannot discern this information from disclosures in which many different companies are listed and only the generic name of a drug or device is used in the publication. Henceforth, when applicable, the disclosure statement should begin with the statement that the drug/device studied in the report is manufactured and/or marketed by company X, for whom authors A, B, and C have…(e.g., consulted, received grants, served on the advisory board). This will allow readers to better understand the conflicts of interest most germane to the publication. In coming months, SLEEP will further update its policies regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest and other aspects of responsible conduct in scientific communication. These will include adoption of the new uniform disclosure forms of ICMJE.4 We will also begin enforcing disclosure requirements. If it is discovered during manuscript review and processing that an author neglected to disclose a relevant conflict of interest, whether or not it is financial in nature, the manuscript will be withdrawn from consideration. If the discovery occurs after the paper is published, the Editors will follow the guidelines of ICMJE4 regarding expressions of concern and retraction of manuscripts. SLEEP now requires that all clinical trials, regardless of when they were completed, and all partial and secondary analyses of original clinical trials must be registered before submission of a manuscript based on the trial. Trials must have been registered at or before the onset of patient enrollment for any clinical trial that began patient enrollment on or after February 1, 2007. The trial name, URL, and registration number should be included at the end of the manuscript abstract. Acceptable clinical trial registries can be found at the SLEEP website, under instructions to authors. Integrity in scientific reporting is the responsibility of everyone involved in sleep research, manuscript development, submission, review, and evaluation. All scientists should be aware of these standards, which continue to evolve and cover a wide range of issues relevant to ethical scientific publishing. As has been noted by the Council of Science Editors,2 scientific journals have responsibilities to the public, the scientific community as a whole, the owners/publishers, the authors of published papers, the peer reviewers, and to the readers. Thus, prospective authors should proactively and conscientiously assume their vital role in the preservation of scientific integrity and the unique value of their intellectual contributions to humankind.