Reviewers of Manuscripts, Volumes 41–42

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.

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

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.

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 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 Times, They Are Changing Again

Initial certification by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) includes passing both a written, multiple-choice question qualifying examination (QE) and an oral certifying examination (OCE). The ABEM QE and OCE are intended to test different, yet complimentary knowledge, skills, and abilities (i.e., competencies) outlined in the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine.1 Prior research provides validity evidence for the OCE.2-4 Physicians taking the OCE report that cases used for the examination are like the patients they provide care for in clinical practice.4, 5 Prior studies have shown substantial reliability for the OCE, including high inter-rater agreement on examination scoring.5, 6 However, the correlation between scores on the QE and OCE has not been reported, which is important to understand the utility of the two examinations. A very low correlation would challenge the construct validity of a two-examination certification process. It would suggest that the cognitive skills and medical knowledge assessed on the QE have limited applicability to performance in the OCE. A very high correlation coefficient would suggest that either the QE or the OCE is redundant and unnecessary—a single examination would create a similar assessment outcome as a two-examination process. A moderate correlation would suggest that the OCE measures some competencies that are related to the QE and some competencies that are unique to the OCE. The objective of this study was to measure the association between physician performance on the ABEM QE and the OCE. We conducted an institutional review board–approved, cross-sectional study of physicians taking the ABEM QE and OCE between the years 1980 and 2022 to determine the relationship between the examination scores. All physicians who had a first attempt on both the QE and the OCE were included. We used first-time test attempts to avoid biases related to prior test performance and repeated test taking. The QE is a 305-item multiple-choice assessment of emergency medicine knowledge and cognitive skills. The QE scores range from 0 to 100, are an equated scaled score, and have a high degree of reliability (Cronbach's alpha of 0.84–0.90). The standard error of measurement for the QE has for the past 5 years (2018–2022) has ranged from 1.76 to 1.86. The OCE has scores that range from 1.00 to 8.00, are a scaled score, and have a high degree of reliability (Rasch and Cronbach's reliability coefficients from 0.90 to 0.99). The standard error of measurement for the OCE ranges from 0.02 to 0.06. Pairwise complete observations were used for the study, meaning that both the QE and the OCE had to be attempted. Data were collected during test administrations by the Board from 1980 to 2022. ABEM's scores were verified through internal replication prior to reporting. All data were deidentified and are reported in aggregate. The Pearson product-moment correlation (r) was chosen to describe the bivariate correlation between two normally distributed continuous variables, the scores on both the QE and the OCE. Prior analysis has shown that these examination scores were normally distributed. A priori categories of relationship strength for a given correlation coefficient would be 0.5 to 0.8 strong positive, 0.2 to 0.5 moderate positive, and 0.0 to 0.2 weak positive.7 In addition to the correlation, it was assumed that there was a linear relationship between QE and OCE scores. For this reason, a simple regression model was fit. A total of 55,108 physicians were included. This cohort included physicians who completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited emergency medicine residency and physicians who, prior to 1988, met practice-based criteria. All test takers also had an unencumbered medical license. The main results were the descriptive performance statistics for the QE and the VOE. The mean (±SD) score for the QE was 82.35 (±6.30; median 83, min 23, max 100, range 77). The mean (±SD) score for the OCE was 5.84 (±0.39; median 5.84, min 2.82, max 7.8, range 4.98). The QE and OCE scores were normally distributed, scaled scores. The Pearson's product-moment correlation calculated between the QE and OCE scores was r = 0.33 (95% CI 0.32–0.34). The alternative hypothesis that the true correlation is not equal to 0 is supported by the data: t = 81.545, df = 55,106, and p < 0.001. There is a statistically significant association between performance on the QE and performance on the OCE (Figure 1). This suggests that better performance on the QE is associated with a higher score on the OCE. The predictive capacity of the QE was similarly demonstrated by the relationship between the QE and OCE. A linear regression model between these two variables indicated that for every point of QE score, a predicted OCE score goes up by 0.02 points (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.02–0.02). The R2 of 0.11 or proportion of variance explained is expected (squaring the Pearson's r of 0.33 yielded 0.11). There are several limitations to this study. First, the relationship between the ABEM QE and OCE is likely more complex than measuring a single global performance event of physicians taking an examination. The results of our analysis do not allow for a causal relationship to be established between QE and OCE performance, although a moderate association is suggested. Additionally, this analysis is an aggregate analysis of the relationship between the QE and OCE. It does not describe whether or how the performance relationship has changed over time. However, it is unlikely that the correlation between the QE and OCE would have varied significantly given the consistency with which ABEM has approached test development and administration. Finally, the ABEM QE and OCE use different psychometric scales and have different passing standards that have evolved over time. These differences could affect the magnitude of the correlation coefficient, but how these variances would alter the correlation between QE and OCE is uncertain. This study is the first, to our knowledge, to explore how performance on the QE is associated with performance on OCE. The association is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the two examinations are related (i.e., convergent validity) but the association is not so high that it obviates the suggestion that the OCE measures substantially different content or competencies. As seen in the regression analysis, the association is not tightly clustered, suggesting that other factors are contributing to the OCE score. The ABEM QE and OCE are moderately correlated (above 0.2 and below 0.5), suggesting convergent validity evidence. Convergent evidence suggests that assessments that are built on similar constructs should have related results.8 The QE and OCE have related results, but the association is not so strong that the QE could be used alone to measure the same medical knowledge, cognitive skills, and other abilities necessary to practice emergency medicine that are measured by the OCE. The moderate correlation concurrently provides divergent evidence, meaning that the OCE is not a redundant reformulation of the QE construct (i.e., medical knowledge and cognitive skills).8 ABEM constructs the QE and OCE using competencies outlined in the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine.1 Many competencies that are necessary to be a practicing emergency physician cannot be assessed on a multiple-choice question examination (i.e., the QE) and are therefore assessed on the OCE. Because the OCE assesses different competencies than the QE, the combination of the two provide a complementary, comprehensive summative evaluation for initial certification. In summary, these results suggest that the QE and OCE examinations used for initial certification by the ABEM are moderately correlated. In other words, the QE and OCE are related but different examinations. These results add validity support to the use of the OCE for initial certification decisions because the test measures additional competencies that are necessary for the competent practice of emergency medicine. These additional competencies assessed on the OCE are supplementary to the QE, not duplicative. Future research is needed to continue to provide additional validity evidence for the OCE such as predictive validity and consequential validity evidence. Diane L. Gorgas: study design, manuscript development, and review. Yvette Calderon: manuscript review. Wallace A. Carter: manuscript review. Suzanne R. White: manuscript review. Kim M. Feldhaus: manuscript review. Earl J. Reisdorff: manuscript review. Kevin B. Joldersma: study design, data analysis, and manuscript review. Chadd K. Kraus: manuscript development and manuscript review. The authors thank Ms. Lyndsay Tyler for her valued work coordinating the development of the manuscript. Drs. Gorgas, Calderon, Carter, White, and Feldhaus serve on the American Board of Emergency Medicine Board of Directors. Drs. Reisdorff, Joldersma, and Kraus are employed by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. The American Board of Emergency Medicine receives revenue from administering both examinations used in this study.

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

CIMS is not an optical spectroscopy technique like the others listed. In addition, it is not discussed later in the paragraph when the positives and negatives are described. Yes, CIMS was discussed after spectroscopic techniques. Section 2.2.2 : Section 2.2.2 is difficult to understand. Parameters are weakly defined and technical terminology that is not typical for the atmospheric sciences makes the section challenging to understand for a likely ACP audience (including this reviewer). It is recommended that the authors include a description of how the choices made by the authors impact the outcomes of the ANN approach. We should have been more cautious when introducing new method and terminology. In the revised manuscript, the method section regarding the ANN was shortened and instead, a full explanation is given in supplementary information including the structure of ANN and the detailed procedure of calculation. Lines 263-267 : The average concentrations cited are not necessarily useful numbers because the diel variations in mixing ratios are so large. The nocturnal HONO and daytime O3 mixing ratios are the most important, respectively. Do the 'average' values for the high-O3 and non-episode days reflect the day-long averages? If so, the authors should consider changing the presentation of data to be more applicable to the chemistry at hand Yes, the daily averaged concentration is not useful for O3 in urban areas because of a big difference between the daytime and nighttime. In comparison, the daily average of HONO concentrations reflect the nighttime level well and thus, can be compared from region to region and from time to time. The daily averaged concentrations are to compare the HONO level of Seoul with those of other cities from previous studies. In this study, HONO was discussed in relation with O3 and for this reason, the O3 average concentration was given in pairs with HONO. The various types of concentrations are discussed and compared in the text. For clarity, they are summarized in Table Lines 280-282 : The reason for the anti-correlation of O3 and HONO is due to the source and sink processes for these two gases. While the paper is suggesting that a relationship between these two important reactive trace gases exists, the sources of variation in the diel profile of HONO and O3 are actually *distantly* related. I do not understand why it is appropriate to discuss the data in such a simplistic C2

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

Previous articleNext article FreeReflections on the Journal of the Society for Social Work and ResearchJeffrey M. JensonJeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreI am pleased to offer a few reflections on the evolution, progress, and current status of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) as I end my tenure as editor-in-chief.My involvement in efforts led by the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to publish high-quality scientific articles began in 2005 when I co-chaired the SSWR Presidential Task Force on Publications with President Anne E. (Ricky) Fortune. Our task force found that manuscript submission and review processes of many social work journals were hindered by lengthy manuscript review periods, inconsistent quality in manuscript reviews, and extensive publication backlogs (Jenson et al., 2008). The vison of a new SSWR-sponsored journal was seen as an opportunity to create a publication outlet that was not plagued by the inadequacies identified in the task force report. JSSWR was launched in 2009 to fill a void in both rigor and process in social work journals at the time (Fong, Gehlert, Marsh, Uehara, & Williams, 2019). Founding Editor-in-Chief Mark Fraser noted in the inaugural issue that “JSSWR is a scholarly journal that is committed to the rapid dissemination of research that informs practice, evaluates social and health programs, assesses public policies, and encourages further research (Fraser & Wyant, 2010, p. i).”Begun in a self-published, open-access format, the journal enjoyed early success that quickly outstripped the capacity of its publication platform and infrastructure. As chairperson of SSWR’s Committee on Publications (COP) at the time, I led an effort to select a new publisher for JSSWR in 2012. This was a collaborative effort involving COP members, SSWR staff and board members, and the JSSWR editorial team. We reviewed five proposals from well-known publishers, and the SSWR Board selected the University of Chicago Press as its publisher in 2014 (Fong et al., 2019). This decision moved JSSWR from an open-access format to a hybrid publication model that includes subscription-based print and online-first articles as well as some open-access articles.The journal’s early years provided a solid foundation for the progress we made during my 4 years as editor-in-chief (2016–2020). I am pleased to report that JSSWR is thriving and poised to take significant strides in the future. We received 127 submissions in 2019—more than in any past year. Our manuscript acceptance rate remains low at 21%, suggesting that we are publishing some of our field’s highest quality research. To address the increase in the number of submissions, the SSWR Board recently approved an expansion in the number of pages published in the journal each year. Finally, true to its founding principles, JSSWR has maintained its reputation for the rapid turnaround and rigor of its publications. In 2019, reviewers completed reviews in 19 days, on average, and the average turnaround time from submission to first decision was 42 days.The impact of manuscripts published in the journal continues to grow. JSSWR received its first impact factor score from Journal Citation Reports in June 2016. Our initial score was .688, which placed us No. 31 of 42 journals in the social work category. Circulation and access to online articles have continued to increase since our first score, and in the 2018 Journal Citation Reports (published in June 2019), our impact factor improved to 1.508. JSSWR is now ranked No. 10 among all social work journals. In a recent article published in Research on Social Work Practice, JSSWR was ranked No. 2 in both overall quality and prestige among 64 journals in the field by a sample of 307 tenure-track social work faculty (Hodge, Yu, & Kim, 2019). JSSWR articles had 547 general and news media references in 2019—a substantial uptick in our visibility beyond academia—and we established a social media presence on Twitter to promote research published in the journal. In addition, in 2019 JSSWR established an Early Career Reviewer Program to provide mentoring to early career researchers interested in developing skills associated with reviewing research articles. Eleven early career reviewers were selected in the program’s first year.We published several special sections and issues during my tenure as editor-in-chief. These include special issues on the etiology and treatment of severe mental illness (Jenson, Solomon, & Gioia, 2016) and on the social work Grand Challenge to Ensure Healthy Development for All Youth (Jenson, Shapiro, & Bender, 2018). Special sections of the journal have been devoted to the implementation of the Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative (Jenson & Uehara, 2017), social work and neuroscience (Jenson & Eack, 2018), and public impact scholarship in social work (Jenson, Sliva, & Greenfield, 2019). Invited articles from awardees of the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the annual SSWR conference have been featured in each of the past 4 years. Finally, an invited article coauthored by five past presidents of SSWR (Fong et al., 2019) provided a historical perspective of the evolution of the society from 2008 to 2018.It was a privilege to be part of JSSWR’s origins, to serve as an associate editor from 2010 to 2015, and to lead the journal as editor-in-chief from 2016 to 2020. As I conclude my term as editor-in-chief, I am grateful for the outstanding work of our associate editors and peer reviewers, who have made our success possible. I also appreciate the commitment of COP members and the SSWR Board and staff. My work as editor-in-chief has been supported by Dean Amanda Moore McBride of the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, whose commitment to the journal and passion for promoting science and social work have been critical supports during my years as editor-in-chief. Finally, I am particularly grateful to Chelsey Baker-Hauck, JSSWR’s outstanding managing editor. Many of you have had the opportunity to work on manuscripts with Chelsey and know the important role she plays in the life of the journal. I am happy to report that Chelsey will be continuing her managing editor role in the future. Todd Herrenkohl of the University of Michigan, whose comments follow in this issue (Herrenkohl, 2020) assumes the editor-in-chief role with the publication of this issue. He is an outstanding scholar who is well-positioned to lead JSSWR to new achievements and milestones.I appreciate the opportunity I have had to share exceptional social work science with the world as JSSWR editor-in-chief. Thank you all for your interest and support.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is the Philip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor for Children and Youth at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Jeffrey M. Jenson, University of Denver, Graduate School of Social Work, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesFong, R., Gehlert, S., Marsh, J. C., Uehara, E. S., & Williams, J. H. (2019). Reflections on the history of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2008–2018. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1086/702826First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarFraser, M. W., & Wyant, D. (2010). Introduction to the inaugural issue. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(1), i–ii. https://doi.org/10.5243/JSSWR11000First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHerrenkohl, T. I. (2020). The future of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 11(2), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/709437First citation in articleAbstractGoogle ScholarHodge, D. R., Yu, M., & Kim, A. (2019). Assessing the quality and prestige of disciplinary social work journals: A national study of faculty perceptions. Research on Social Work Practice, 30, 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731519890402First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., & Eack, S. M. (Eds.). (2018). Social work and neuroscience [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(2), 217–358. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2018/9/2First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Fortune, A. E., Ashford, J. B., Baer, J. C., Barth, R. P., Cohen, B., … Shanks, T. R. W. (2008). Journal publication practices in social work: Final report from the Society for Social Work and Research Presidential Task Force on Publications. Washington, DC: Society for Social Work and Research.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Shapiro, V. B., & Bender, K. (Eds.). (2018). Ensuring healthy development for all youth through the power of prevention [Special issue]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(4). Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2018/9/4First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Sliva, S. M., & Greenfield, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). Public impact scholarship in social work [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(4), 529–621. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2019/10/4First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., Solomon, P., & Gioia, D. (Eds.). (2016). The etiology and treatment of severe mental illness [Special issue]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(2). Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2016/7/2First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJenson, J. M., & Uehara, E. S. (Eds.). (2017). Implementing the Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative [Special section]. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(1), 71–159. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jsswr/2017/8/1First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 11, Number 2Summer 2020 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/709454HistoryPublished online June 23, 2020 KeywordsSociety for Social Work and Researchsocial worksocial scienceresearchpublishing© 2020 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Given the critical importance of manuscript review, the development of a more evidence-based approach is needed. Manuscript review is the final step in the research process, and limitations in this aspect of the process may have a negative impact on the quality of published research in psychology and in other disciplines as well. This article examines current findings regarding the strengths and limitations of manuscript review and identifies ways that the process can be improved. To move toward a more evidence-based framework, the current conceptualization of the review process as a method for evaluating manuscripts must be complemented by an appreciation of two dynamics that help shape this process. First, manuscript review is a signal-detection task wherein reviewers and editors attempt to distinguish signals (publishable manuscripts) from noise (manuscripts that do not warrant publication). Second, manuscript review involves a complex social interaction among authors, reviewers, and editors, each of whom brings particular goals to the endeavor and each of whom must communicate with multiple audiences simultaneously to achieve those goals. The practical implications of research in this area are discussed, and preliminary steps for moving toward a more evidence-based approach to manuscript review are outlined.

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.