Had a blast 🚀 at #ISEE2019 pre-conference peer review workshop with @EHPonline science editor Jane Schroeder. A few quick takeaways from Jane below.
@ISEE_global @IseeSnrn
@ISEE_global @IseeSnrn
@EHPonline @ISEE_global @IseeSnrn 1. Bias is almost always the main concern [as a reviewer], spend your time identifying it 🧐
@EHPonline @ISEE_global @IseeSnrn 2. You are not reviewing the authors or their institution, you are reviewing the manuscript, focus on that
@EHPonline @ISEE_global @IseeSnrn 3. Before you look at the results or abstract, review the tables and figures and draw your own conclusions and identify patterns and trends in an agnostic way. If you read the author’s messaging first, it’s very hard to un-see their conclusions and do an unbiased review
@EHPonline @ISEE_global @IseeSnrn 4. Things you can (and often should) ask for as a reviewer: flow chart for population, model equations, code, further description of methods
@EHPonline @ISEE_global @IseeSnrn 5. Only request additional analyses if they are needed to support the authors’ conclusions, but it might be better for the authors to re-write their conclusions to match their current results
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
