1+ for peer review ! (at least in this case)

Regular readers will remember my interest for the influence of vasopressors on brain perfusion and oxygenation. You can have a look here, here, here and here for further details. I have started to work in this research area during my postdoc in Copenhagen with Niels Secher. We had a lot of great discussions about that issue and we published a couple of papers (#1, #2 and #3). Obviously, I am still interested in this exciting issue and I have thus decided to study the influence of vasopressors on brain oxygenation in disease states (main focus of my lab at the moment)

I have recently submitted a beautiful story (at least in my taste!) for publication with the first data coming from my own lab and related to that issue. I was pretty excited !

Yesterday, I received the email from the editor of the journal…

Dear Dr. Brassard,

Thank you for submitting your paper to the VERY INTERESTING JOURNAL.  This paper was reviewed by our editorial board and found to require revision and re-submission for further evaluation.

This paper is special because it is the first time that I am on my own with that issue. I have put a lot of pressure on my shoulders. So, that answer is very positive, especially after all those grant rejections !

After having read the first paragraph of the email announcing that great news, I had a quick look at reviewers’ comments…

Reviewer #1…ok

Reviewer #2…ok

Reviewer #3 (this one should not be seen as the 3rd reviewer)…ok

Reviewer #4 !!1 !

Four reviewers had a look at this paper ! I usually only have comments from two reviewers…but four !

This being said, these people did A.GREAT.JOB ! Too often, our papers are rejected with about two lines of explanations per reviewer. It is definitely refreshing to know that reviewers care about this kind of work. They are asking a lot of though questions, they are providing interesting suggestions, and importantly, everything is done with a positive tone. I can tell you right away, this paper will be considerably improved following it’s revision according to the reviewers’ comments.

1+ for peer review…at least in this case !


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s