Update on the Manuscript Peer Review Process

Quality peer reviewers of manuscripts are the bedrock of any good journal. They play an essential role in assuring the high caliber and accuracy of the science that a journal publishes. A good peer review is used by the journal to help the editorial team make informed decisions and to improve the quality of published manuscripts. However, good peer reviewers are not always easy to find. Surprisingly, one study has shown that scientific training and increasing practical experience reviewing papers are not reflected in the quality of subsequent reviews performed by a reviewer (Bruce et al. 2016). Other studies have shown that some peer reviewers are not able to appropriately detect errors (Ghimire et al. 2012; Boutron et al. 2010), improve the completeness of reporting (Hopewell et al. 2014), or decrease the distortion of the study results (i.e. “spin”; Turner et al. 2008; Melander et al. 2003; Lazarus et al. 2015). So, what’s a journal to do? In 2014, Toxicologic Pathology expanded its editorial board (EB) from 25 to 52. These members are drawn from all the societies who have selected Toxicologic Pathology as their professional journal. The goal was to have a sufficient number of experienced reviewers available to review manuscripts based on the number of papers received in 1 year. Another goal was to have EB expertise in as many specialty areas as possible. The associate editors (AEs), currently 17 in number, are encouraged to determine which specialty reviews a manuscript might need (e.g., statistics or subject matter expert for a given organ, species, or technology) and invite appropriate authorities in the field. If an AE cannot find a peer reviewer in a specific specialty area, then someone outside of the EB may be invited; in general, society members are considered before external scientists. An effort was also made to clarify the goal of the Toxicologic Pathology peer review process, provide a definition of a good-quality peer review report, and list the outcomes that should be used in making publication decisions. We address these points by providing clear instructions to reviewers (Online Supplementary Table I) and in 2015 added a point-by-point checklist (Table 1) for the peer reviewer to use. Once the initial reviews have been completed and evaluated by the AE, the anonymous remarks and AE’s comments (if any) are sent either to the authors with a recommendation for a minor or major revision or to the editor in chief (EIC) with a recommendation and rationale for rejection. The reviewers receive an anonymous carbon copy of the decision e-mail that is sent to the authors and therefore have the chance to see other appraisals of the same manuscript. An astute peer reviewer will seize this opportunity to discover where they might have done a better job in performing their review. Such learning facilitates better reviewing in the future, especially when it is time to look at the revised version of the same manuscript. If a minor revision was recommended by the peer reviewers, then the AE will generally assess the revised manuscript to ensure that all recommended edits were appropriately addressed. If issues were addressed effectively, the AE may send a recommendation to the EIC to accept the manuscript without having the revision undergo a second round of formal peer review. The journal has adopted this option as a means of speeding up publication decisions while ensuring that the quality of accepted papers remains high. If a major revision was recommended, however, the reviewers will have an opportunity to review the revised manuscript to ensure that their proposed edits were made or read the authors response, indicating why one or more proposed edits were not done. Outcomes for manuscripts that required a major revision may range from another revision (often minor) to an AE recommendation to the EIC for acceptance or rejection. The journal has incorporated a 2-tier screening process for all initial submissions to avoid peer-reviewing unsuitable manuscripts. The first screen is done by the managing editor, who manages the submission and peer review process for the journal. She will determine if (1) all figures and tables are submitted at the appropriate size and resolution according to the author guidelines, (2) a cover letter has been submitted, (3) the appropriate format was used, according to author