Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Preparing a Manuscript
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Fees
    • Journal Club
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Preparing a Manuscript
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Fees
    • Journal Club
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Editorial

Peer Review Week 2018: Diversity in Peer Review

Marina Picciotto
Journal of Neuroscience 12 September 2018, 38 (37) 7929; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2072-18.2018
Marina Picciotto
  • 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

I look forward to Peer Review Week because, first, it gives me a chance to thank publicly the volunteer reviewers who are critical members of The Journal of Neuroscience community. Each year, you agree to read and evaluate the work submitted to JNeurosci, and your participation in this process makes the work even stronger. Thank you for the work you do. As we move to many parallel and diverse ways to get scientific discovery out into the community, I want to affirm my commitment, and the commitment of JNeurosci, to the peer review process and to the idea that we are willing to come together to agree on what controls and standards provide the basis on which neuroscience knowledge can move forward. Like all human endeavors, peer review is not perfect, but the consensus opinion of reviewers knowledgeable in the field, along with oversight by committed editors, provides an incredibly important service to the scientific enterprise. As in past years, we will be honoring a few of our most insightful and relied-upon reviewers with certificates of appreciation and a public shout-out, if they don't mind being acknowledged.

Second, each year there is a different theme for Peer Review Week that highlights a key issue in the process. This year the theme is “Diversity in Peer Review.” At JNeurosci, this means many different things. First, it means making sure that the breadth of the authors who submit their work to JNeurosci is reflected among the reviewers who evaluate their work. Diversity at every level is important to make sure that the consensus on what makes a strong study reflects a broad definition of excellence. More than half of the papers submitted to JNeurosci are from outside the United States, and we work to make sure that the pool of reviewers is equally representative of our global authorship. We have only recently begun keeping records of gender for both our authors and reviewers, so our analyses are still incomplete and preliminary, but among those papers for which we have data, a little more than one-third of our submissions have a female corresponding author, and those papers have an equal (actually, slightly better) rate of acceptance compared with papers with a male corresponding author. The percentage of female reviewers lags behind corresponding authors slightly, however, and we are focused on making sure that this ratio catches up by sharing names of female reviewers and prompting reviewers who decline to think of female (and non-U.S.) scientists when they make suggestions for alternative reviewers to invite.

Finally, we are committed to making sure that the next generation of peer reviewers has the tools they need to provide constructive, fair, and rigorous reviews, and that they have a pathway into the review process at JNeurosci. One way we are working to do this is to call on our Associate Editors, who are chosen for their commitment to the peer review process shown by their outstanding, rapid, and frequent reviews for JNeurosci, to provide training to trainees through our Reviewer Mentoring Program (http://www.jneurosci.org/content/38/3/511). This is a pilot; and because it involves one-on-one interactions, it can only accommodate a subset of trainees who would like to be involved, but we are interested in ideas on how we can scale up this program and include more trainees and mentors. Both trainees and mentors have enjoyed the program, and you can read some of their comments here: http://neuronline.sfn.org/Articles/Professional-Development/2018/The-Importance-of-Diversity-and-Inclusion-in-Peer-Review.

As always, if you have suggestions on how we can improve the peer review process at JNeurosci, please e-mail me at JN_EIC{at}SfN.org or tweet @MarinaP63.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 38 (37)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 38, Issue 37
12 Sep 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • 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.
Peer Review Week 2018: Diversity in Peer Review
(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
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Peer Review Week 2018: Diversity in Peer Review
Marina Picciotto
Journal of Neuroscience 12 September 2018, 38 (37) 7929; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2072-18.2018

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
Peer Review Week 2018: Diversity in Peer Review
Marina Picciotto
Journal of Neuroscience 12 September 2018, 38 (37) 7929; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2072-18.2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google 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

  • 40 Years of The Journal of Neuroscience
  • End of a [Paper] Era
  • Peer Review Week 2020: Trust in Peer Review
Show more Editorial
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 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 Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 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.