Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Editorial

Gratitude to Our Reviewers

Marina Picciotto
Journal of Neuroscience 7 September 2016, 36 (36) 9267; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2645-16.2016
Marina Picciotto
EiC, JNeurosci
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marina Picciotto
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In honor of Peer Review Week (September 19–26; https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com), I want to take a moment to thank our reviewers and to recognize the hours you spend volunteering your time to make sure that the science published in JNeurosci is rigorous, accurate and moves the neuroscience field forward.

I have had colleagues complain that peer review lengthens the time it takes to get scientific findings into print or increases the number of unnecessary control experiments requested, but that has not been my experience. For my own work, rigorous review has ensured that I could make the case for an interpretation of data that is reasonable, even for those who have not puzzled through the initial process of experimental design. More important, requests to rule out confounds by performing a neglected control has on occasion saved me from making an erroneous conclusion. Peer review is the original scientific crowd sourcing — the collective wisdom of reviewers is a valuable resource.

From the editorial standpoint, peer review is even more valuable. Editors handle manuscripts in their general area of research, but even the broadest background is not sufficient to cover the details of every manuscript submitted. Reviewers with expertise closer to the experiments presented can catch methodological concerns that even a careful editor who has not worked in the area would miss. Deep knowledge of a field can also identify justification for unexpected findings from literature that would be unknown to a non-specialist. Finally, a good reviewer can make the case for the scientific importance of a finding that may not be obvious to the editor and ensure that a novel and exciting finding makes it into print.

I am also grateful to reviewers who spot potential problems with submitted data before they reach print. Our reviewers have identified errors in statistical analysis that preclude good experimental design, figures duplicated from previously published work, and images that were altered in ways that do not conform to journal Guidelines for Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication. Issues of this kind are referred to the editors for investigation and prevent publication of potentially misleading articles.

We recognize our reviewers by highlighting their names in the 1st issue published every year (Reviewer Recognition). In addition, new Associate Editors are chosen for the JNeurosci Editorial Board each year based on the number, timeliness, and quality of reviews in the previous year. Our most frequent reviewers volunteer many hours of their time ensuring that the papers published in JNeurosci are accurate and useful.

So, thank you to all of you for contributing your knowledge and experience to The Journal of Neuroscience. We value your contributions and look forward to working with you.

Please send us suggestions for how we might improve the peer review process in the future at JN_EIC{at}SFN.ORG or tweet your suggestions to @marinaP63.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 36 (36)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 36, Issue 36
7 Sep 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gratitude to Our Reviewers
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Gratitude to Our Reviewers
Marina Picciotto
Journal of Neuroscience 7 September 2016, 36 (36) 9267; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2645-16.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Gratitude to Our Reviewers
Marina Picciotto
Journal of Neuroscience 7 September 2016, 36 (36) 9267; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2645-16.2016
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Author-Centered Approach to Scientific Publishing
  • Welcoming JNeurosci's Early Career Researcher Advisory Board
  • Including Early Career Researchers in Scientific Publishing
Show more Editorial
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.