I guess you didn’t know it and I bet you didn’t care that this week was reviewer week. I didn’t know until got an spam email from PLoS Biology either. However reviewers are being celebrated. Acting as a reviewer is part of the science publishing process.
This is part dictates what you get to read here. Good reviews and maybe EAE In the octopus would have got star billing a bad review and we would not be wasting our time with salt and eating poo.
The stuff we report here is based on what is published and also what the media picks up.
So what has this got.to.do.with an ORCHID. Well every academic gets an ORCHID a unique number. You grants papers and.now.your reviewing activity can all be linked to this number. Some places will be actively using this as a.metric to determine if you are a science superstar.
So what do I do to become a Nature reviewer? Brown nose?, Publish a lot in Nature? Brown nose to publish a lot in Nature. ok I am joking but you get the point.
But now there is a move to collect a metric on what reviews you do. It says this is something useful. Really.
No doubt it will be used in future as part of your assessment. It won’t be the fact that you review but where you review that is important
One guy was known as a nature reviewer but does that say this person is ace, or does it say he can be god dictaing that you have to do a year of work to get into Nature. Does it say he is useless because look at some of the unrepeatable tosh that gets published. Does it says it gets in because you are a mate of the Nature reviewer.ha
I have certainly seen it where the review is soft because the author is an opinion leader.
However I have been the recipient of constructive critism which is ok but there are times when it drives you nuts. It is luck of the draw sometime, one or two review are ace and the other sinks you paper to rejection. Mention the lack of the N word Novelty and you are doomed.
No sooner had we dissed the so called secondary progressive EAE than it is back as a primary progressive EAE. Deep down I have my doubts but when I look at this stuff I keep an open mind because if it were true and it was a quick primary progressive model it would be great.
Indeed, I admit that I have sort of reviewed this paper. I was ask declared my conflicts to the editor, but they still asked me to look at it. I did it with an open mind and made some what I hope were constructive suggestions but I said I would insist on seeing the individual score
Is because it is so easy to fiddle the line graph. The paper came back whilst I was away and before I had time to accept the review,. The journal wrote back to say, they didn’t need me. I wrote back journal to say I was back and could do it, I never saw it again. Until it surfaced. They have put individual scores in and they creep up in days. I would love to see this. Taking a step back I would say there is an monophaisc attack and the disease largely the same as you see in C57BL/6 mice.
You however simlpy have to see the scoring as the scores wobble depending I am guessing on whethther the toes splay or not. It is difficult to work out what is going on because as you can see there are 3 figures without any legend and so it would suggest that the reviewer is rather rubbish
They then try and validate the model using steroids biotin etc The problem here is there is no positive control of something you know works well. However one suggestion was to do peripheral T cell therapy which doesn’t work well.see how it works in the model.
It will be interesting how the people who use the same model that is. called secondary progressive react to this. Probably they will just ignore it. However again it shows how raw data needs to be deposited at the time of submission.
I know Dr Love has made requests for raw data for another paper and has been ignored three times. This is in a high impact journal where the authors says the data is available to reasonable request. It makes me concerned that the published data is weak and shows that words are hollow.
Will I get credit for reviewing the paper now