Dr Jekyll's Guide for Reviewers

Thanks for agreeing to review a paper for Glamour Biology! Forthwith, some suggestions you may find helpful for your reviews.

1) There sure are a lot of techniques out there these days, aren't there? We don't want you to be deterred by the prospect of reviewing a paper whose central technique is unfamiliar to you. So we'd like to encourage you to apply the standards of your technique to other techniques in the field, whether or not you have any experience with them.

For example, if you request an experiment from the authors of a manuscript, and they decline to do it on the grounds that it is technically impossible, you have every right to insist. Pushing authors to accomplish the impossible is the only way science progresses!

2) Similarly, different biologists study different organisms. Again, don't let this get you down! If you review a manuscript in which the model organism is different than your model organism, you are encouraged to suggest that the authors expand their study to include your model organism. This is a great way to foster communication among biologists.

3) Our special checkbox review portion asks you whether you think this manuscript would be equally appropriate at a more specialized journal, i.e. Unglamorous Biology. Some reviewers have mentioned concern that they think Unglamorous Biology and Glamour Biology are actually equally respectable. Um, ha ha! If this is your concern, please contact the editorial office straightaway so that we can put you on an internal list. This list isn't for any purpose, just that we like to keep track.

4) Think that the authors didn't read your first review carefully enough? Here's a handy tip: during re-review, write the critical point in ALL CAPS. That way, the authors won't miss it.

5) Sometimes, a manuscript lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. What can you say? Perhaps it's just not feasible to explain your underlying dissatisfaction with a manuscript. Your best bet in these circumstances is to be vague. Don't try to detail experiments that should have been done, or questions that need to be resolved; this will only clutter up your review. Just say that the manuscript is "unsatisfying" or "needs work" or "lacks a certain something." Most authors don't like being told to do additional experiments, so avoiding any detail on this point will help them feel better about your rejection.

6) Do the authors have a Nobel Prize? If so, we will EZPass(tm) their submission so that it goes right out for review, and you as a reviewer are encouraged to overlook any inconsistencies in the interests of expedience.

7) We're regularly asked by prospective reviewers whether the fact that they've been declared non compos mentis disqualifies them from reviewing. Not at all! The pool of possible reviewers is so very small; also, we do not like to exclude people on the basis of intellectual discrimination. That would be wrong.

8) We know that we just rejected a paper from your lab. Still, no hard feelings, right? Could you please review this paper? From a competitor? That looks suspiciously like your rejected paper?

9) Any questions, just hold onto the manuscript you're reviewing until an answer comes to you! We don't want you rushing into any rash decisions.

10) Please don't question our authority to make decisions. All of the editors here have rigorous scientific training, and the fact that none of us was ever able to publish our own scientific work in a journal like Glamour Biology gives us the proper respect for the high standards to which these submissions must be held. We are unbending in our defense of this journal's scientific rigor mortis.


All the best,

The Editors