I have been interested in the influence of sympathetic nervous activity on the brain for a couple of years now with my vasopressor studies.
I am thus excited to share with you that Phil Ainslie and I have just published a review on that issue in F1000prime Reports.
This review is entitled Why is the neural control of cerebral autoregulation so controversial?
Happy reading !
Although I have been a reviewer for 8 years now, I never received an invitation from Journal yyyy to review a manuscript for which I’ve already been a reviewer for Journal xxxx.
I am curious… How do you approach the review of a manuscript submitted to Journal yyyy with no evidence of (even minor) update from your previous review for Journal xxxx (obviously, this manuscript has been rejected for publication in Journal xxxx) ? Will you ask to authors the reason(s) why they decided not to change their initial version of the manuscript or will you copy-paste the same general and specific comments ?
Yesterday, I received the Circulation Online Table of Contents Alert and noticed the following:
Circulation Topic Review
Exercise Physiology and Rehabilitation in Circulation and the Circulation Subspecialty Journals
Circulation 2012;125 e419-e426
The following articles are being highlighted as part of Circulation’s Topic Review series. This series will summarize the most important manuscripts, as selected by the editors, published in Circulation and the Circulation subspecialty journals. The studies included in this article represent the articles related to exercise physiology and rehabilitation that were published in Circulation and its subspecialty journals in 2010 and 2011.
I was a bit intrigued and thus I had a look at these articles. To my great surprise, our manuscript published in Circulation Heart Failure (discussed in a previous post) has been selected by the editors !
I needed to share this good news !
Last week, I was asking myself what would be the best way to comment a published paper: submit a letter to the editor/e-comment or a blog post. The paper I wanted to comment on was published in a journal offering an interactive platform to send online comments. I found that idea attractive. So, I decided to submit my online comment a couple of days ago. Clearly, the period of time between today and the day I have submitted my comment is rather short for the authors to answer. Also, in that particular comment, all issues are not addressable.
However, when you carefully look at the last, let’s say, 15 online comments, there is no answer from the authors who published manuscripts targeted by online comments. To my knowledge, the percentage of answers/rebuttal by the authors of the targeted manuscripts seems higher…
Although I understand that some issues contained in online comments/letters to the editor are not necessarily addressable, I consider that our job doesn’t stop after the publication of a manuscript. The discussion following the publication of the manuscript is, to my eyes, as important as the publication in itself…
Having access to an electronic platform to submit online comments is definitely a step forward, but it would be great, even if the work doesn’t appear in the “Publications” section of the CV, to see answers/rebuttal to online comments. That would render that process truly…interactive.
What do you think?
I am in front of my computer this morning getting ready to submit another paper. Although I find the submission process unpleasant sometimes, I still remain excited every time I am about to submit the fruit of our work out there !
Today, this submission represents the second round for the last “first author” paper related to my postdoc work. I am feeling weird about it… I had a lot of fun, over the last couple of years, with our discussions about how to write the best possible paper for each study I was involved in during that postdoc. Another page is about to turn…
How did you feel after having submitted the final paper related to your postdoc? Excited? Sad? Scared?
Following my post of last week regarding the best way of discussing or commenting the results of a published paper, now that we have access to blogs, twitter or facebook, I made my decision. I will start by the more traditional route, that is the letter to the editor. I am saying traditional route, but in that case, this will be an ecomment. This comment, which needs to be appropriate and to contribute to the article content (dah !), will be published on the journal’s website within a couple of days after the original submision. Hopefully, this electronic way will be more interactive than the traditional letter to the editor usually published 2 months after submission!
Maybe it could then be fun to continue the discussion here since only 500 words are allowed in that comment…
Two week ago, I came across an interesting paper related to my area of research. Although I find the results interesting, some important issues have not been covered and I consider that a letter to the editor/ecomment is necessary.
However, I have a question for you dear readers. Now that we have numerous possibilities for discussing new research with twitter/facebook/blog, what is the best way to discuss/comment the results of this paper? Should I first submit a letter/ecomment and then publish a blog post ? Should I first blog about it and then submit the letter/ecomment? Are there any unwritten rules that I am unaware of ? What is the value of a letter/ecomment in our publications list?