Ponderings on peer review: Part I. Basic principles

The complete guide to hosting a guest speaker

The ability to effectively host a guest speaker is an important but underemphasized aspect of career development in the physiological and broader biomedical sciences. Currently, there is scant information available to guide early-career scientists through this multifaceted, subtlety-filled process. In this Personal View on Training and Mentoring, I first describe the importance and benefits of hosting visiting speakers. I then discuss the many considerations involved in selecting an appropriate speaker and how to formulate the invitation to present. The key activities involved in planning and preparing for a speaker's visit are described next, including information that must be obtained from the speaker, the logistics of travel and lodging, constructing an effective itinerary, food/meals, and how the presentation will be advertised. I then delve into the essential components of host responsibilities during the visit: best practices for introducing speakers, other hosting duties associated with the presentation, tips for enhancing trainee interactions with the speaker, and keys to properly completing the visit on the right note. I next discuss events occurring after the visit, including speaker expenses, reimbursements, and honoraria. Last, the distinct aspects of virtual visits (i.e., remote presentations and meetings) compared with in-person visits are noted. Overall, this viewpoint is intended to provide a comprehensive guide to successfully hosting a guest speaker that should help advance the professional development of students, postdoctoral fellows, and other early-stage investigators.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This Personal View on Training and Mentoring provides a comprehensive guide to successfully hosting a guest speaker that should help inform and advance the professional development of students, postdoctoral fellows, and other early-stage investigators.

Writing effective letters of recommendation in physiology

A letter of recommendation is a statement of support for a person that has been requested by some individual or organization. In physiology, the purpose of the letter may be to support admission to an academic program, funding of a fellowship grant proposal, consideration for a trainee position in a research laboratory, an award from a professional society, or an application for a job. The goal of the letter should be to provide personalized insight into the suitability of the candidate for the position or award that cannot be easily obtained from other materials in an application or nomination process. Despite the importance of writing effective letters of recommendation, most physiologists receive no formal training in this requisite professional skill. In this Perspective, I first discuss the responsibilities and challenges of writing letters of recommendation, for whom you should consider writing a letter, the pros and cons of asking the candidate to create an initial draft, and the information required for you to write a letter. I then describe a helpful structure to follow when writing a letter of recommendation, including the opening paragraph (introduction), main body, and summary sections. Next, I share 10 insider tips for writing effective letters of recommendation. I complete the commentary by discussing special circumstances, including writing letters for solid but not highly ranking candidates and acting as a "substitute" for a primary mentor. It is hoped that this perspective will provide guidance for early career physiologists in this essential skill of the profession.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This Perspective provides essential background, a step-by-step guide, and key insider tips for writing an effective letter of recommendation aimed at helping early career physiologists with this important professional task.

Ponderings on peer review: Part 3. Grant critiques

In Part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed basic principles of scientific peer review. In Part 2, I focused specifically on the peer review of manuscripts. Here in Part 3, I complete the Perspective by sharing my thoughts on peer review of grant applications. I begin by emphasizing the goals of grant peer review and then describe the two-stage organizational structure involved. The objective of stage 1 of the process is to establish the scientific merit of the grant proposal. For that phase, I discuss grant review panels, reviewer qualifications and responsibilities, how reviewers are identified and selected, prereview meeting activities, activities during the review panel meeting, grant review criteria and scoring scales, and postmeeting activities. I also note two mechanisms that provide "prepeer review" advice and recommendations for grant applications under development. I then describe the events associated with stage 2 of the peer review process in which grant funding agencies consider application merit scores (from stage 1) along with other factors including their (the funding agency's) research mission, priority areas of investigation, and available funds. Tips for early career reviewers are discussed next and include questions to ask before accepting a review assignment, the importance of following reviewer guidelines, considerations when working through applications, issues involved in writing the critique, scoring the application, and how to approach evaluating resubmitted grant applications. Finally, I identify options for gaining skills and experience in peer review of grant proposals.

Ponderings on peer review. Part 2. Manuscript critiques

In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discussing the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the two distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.