We are pleased to announce that GENETICS and G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics are now affiliates of Review Commons.

The GSA Journals have joined the preprint review platform to provide our authors with additional ways to submit their work. Now, authors who choose to have their preprints reviewed via Review Commons will be able to directly submit those manuscripts to GENETICS or G3, streamlining and accelerating the peer review process while maintaining the editorial excellence you’ve come to expect from GSA.

As mission-driven publishers, the GSA Journals place a high priority on responding to community needs and have long supported the use of preprints. We’re excited to continue supporting our community by providing efficient peer review opportunities like direct submission from Review Commons.

>>Submit to Review Commons

>>Why Publish with GENETICS?

>>Why Publish with G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics?

About Review Commons
Review Commons is a platform for high-quality journal-independent peer-review of preprints in the life sciences. BioRxiv or medRxiv preprints reviewed by Review Commons can be transferred to 27 affiliated journals for editorial consideration without starting the peer review process afresh. The peer review process is managed by the Review Commons and EMBO Press editorial teams.

Peer reviewers are vital to science, but early career scientists in our field rarely receive formal training in how to be a good reviewer. GSA and GENETICS are addressing this gap with a program that gives early career GSA members real-world peer review experience. Participants will receive online training and advice from GENETICS editors as they become reviewers for manuscripts submitted to the journal.

This week, we’re introducing the most recent cohort of peer reviewers in the program, so check back to meet the rest of these scientists learning about the integral work of peer review.

Adelaide Tovar

Postdoc, University of Michigan

Amanda Shaver

Postdoc, Northwestern University

Anindya Ganguly

Postdoc, University of California, Santa Barbara

Chin Jian Yang

Postdoc, Scotland’s Rural College

Damon Meyer

Associate Professor, California Northstate University, College of Health Sciences

Elise Tourrette

Postdoc, Institut Pasteur of Shanghai

Emiliano Marti

Graduate Student, University of Rochester

Eshwar Reddy Tammineni

Postdoc, Rush University Medical Center

Haoran Cai

Graduate Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hassan Bukhari

Postdoc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School

Hira Iqbal

Teaching Faculty, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi

Huang Li

Postdoc, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Jeffrey Medley

Postdoc, Kansas State University

Jessie MacAlpine

Graduate Student, University of Toronto

Jingxian Chen

Graduate student, Duke University

Lakshmi Sreekumar

Postdoc, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center

Leire Abalde-Atristain

Postdoc, Oregon Health and Science University

The GSA team welcomes Jenna Daenzer, PhD, as the new Peer Review Coordinator! Jenna will be involved with GENETICS and G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics, reviewing incoming manuscripts for quality and administering programs like the Peer Review Training Program.  

Can you tell us a little bit about your background and your career trajectory?

I grew up in the small town of Frankenmuth, MI. I still remember my introduction to genetics took place during biology class in my sophomore year of high school. I just knew that I had to learn more. I earned a degree in Biochemistry from Alma College, and completed my PhD in Genetics and Molecular Biology at Emory University. I trained in the lab of Judy Fridovich-Keil focusing on models and mechanisms of galactosemia. After graduate school, I remained in research at Emory as a postdoctoral researcher and then as a research scientist. I enjoyed science and learning, but wasn’t certain where I wanted to take my career. When I saw the posting for the Peer Review Coordinator position I felt like it would be a great opportunity to use my scientific background in a new way.

Describe your new position at GSA as the Peer Review Coordinator.

As the Peer Review Coordinator I have several roles within the GSA Journals. I perform quality control checks on incoming manuscripts for GENETICS and G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics. I will be taking on administration of the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program, and I will also help to process Open Peer Review for the Journals.

What upcoming projects are you most looking forward to working on in your new role?

I’m very excited to begin the next cohort of the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program, which will be the first cohort that I will be involved with. The application window is August–September, and I can’t wait to start interacting with the participants. Peer review is vital to science and it’s a great opportunity for early career scientists to get training and experience writing reviews. I am happy to be contributing to this valuable experience for participants.

What’s one piece of advice every early career scientist should hear?

I would encourage every early career scientist to get as involved as they can in the areas that interest them (attend talks, meetings, workshops, courses, etc.) and to talk to as many people as possible. There are so many opportunities and it’s worth putting yourself out there to find them!

What do you think would surprise your undergraduate self about your career path so far?

I think my undergraduate self might be surprised about how I navigated balancing having a family with my career. Finding balance in life is hard!

What professional accomplishment to date are you most proud of?

While I am proud of the contributions I’ve made to my field through research and publication, I think the things I’m most proud of are the times I pushed myself outside of my comfort zone. For example, early in graduate school I was selected to give a talk at a conference where I wouldn’t know anyone. It sounds like a small thing now, but at the time it was something I was very uncomfortable doing. I think those are the things that help us grow the most. More recently, I accepted this new career outside of academia, which brings nerves, but also excitement and growth.

What’s your idea of a perfect weekend?

My perfect weekend is spent either camping or in a cabin on the lake with my family. We spend all day doing activities on the water, cook meals on a campfire, and fall asleep listening to the sounds of nature.

Oxford University Press (OUP) and the Genetics Society of America (GSA) are pleased to announce that OUP will publish the GSA journals GENETICS and G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics beginning January 2021.

GENETICS is a peer-reviewed, peer-edited journal with an international reach and increasing visibility and impact. Since 1916, GENETICS has published high-quality, original research presenting novel findings bearing on genetics and genomics. While it has an illustrious history, the journal has changed along with the communities it serves, innovating and expanding to include new content types and essential thematic collections.

G3 is a fully open access journal that provides a forum for the publication of high‐quality foundational research generating useful genetic and genomic information. The journal meets the critical and growing need of the genetics community for rapid review and publication of important results in all areas of genetics. G3 has earned the DOAJ Seal, a mark of certification awarded by the Directory of Open Access Journals to publications that achieve a high level of openness and adhere to best practices and high publishing standards.

“We look forward to working collaboratively with Oxford University Press to advance GSA’s mission,” Tracey DePellegrin, GSA Executive Director, said of the partnership. “With the help of OUP’s publishing experience and digital capabilities, we can continue placing the highest priority on serving our members and community in publishing essential research, while exploring new opportunities to broaden the reach of GENETICS and G3 in terms of authors, readers, editors, and reviewers. 

Alison Denby, Vice President, Journals, at Oxford University Press also commented: “We are delighted to partner with the Genetics Society of America to publish their prestigious journals. We look forward to working with GSA and the journals’ editorial teams to further develop the excellent reputation of these titles and help position them for future success.”

About GSA

Founded in 1931, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) is the professional membership organization for scientific researchers and educators in the field of genetics. Our members work to advance knowledge in the basic mechanisms of inheritance, from the molecular to the population level. GSA serves an international community of scientists who use genetics to make new discoveries and improve lives. We advance biological research by supporting professional development of scientists, by communicating advances and fostering collaboration through scholarly publishing and conferences, and by advocating for science and for scientists. We seek to cultivate an inclusive, diverse research community that engages with the public, communicates the excitement and implications of discovery, and serves as an authoritative source of information.

About OUP

OUP publishes more than 450 academic and research journals covering a broad range of subject areas, two thirds of which are published in collaboration with learned societies and other international organizations. OUP has been publishing journals for more than a century and, as the world’s largest university press, has more than 500 years of publishing expertise.

For more information, please see the Frequently Asked Questions page and register for the Understanding the GSA and OUP Publishing Partnership webinar on October 7th at 12:00 PM EDT.

An update on the pilot GENETICS Peer Review Training Program, which provides early career scientists with a mentored peer review experience in which they participate in authentic manuscript reviews. The second phase of the pilot program is currently accepting applicants.

As a scientific society publisher, the GSA serves our community. That’s why we are so enthusiastic about the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program. For students and postdocs, honing their peer review skills is a chance to practice critical thinking and scientific writing. Because different labs and fields vary in chances for early career scientists (ECSs) to participate in peer review, the availability of this valuable training opportunity is uneven. For the journal, involving ECSs can bring new perspectives. For the field, formal training enhances the value and fairness of peer review—a cornerstone of science.

To provide more equitable training opportunities, GSA piloted the program last summer, soliciting applications for three journal sections (Cellular Genetics, Developmental and Behavioral Genetics, and Evolutionary and Population Genetics). We received hundreds of applications from our members. Reading through the applications was both humbling and motivating for the program managers and editors. It was clear students and postdocs are aware of the importance of good peer review to the scientific process, and nearly all of them expressed a lack of training opportunities. Even when ECSs were given the opportunity to help their mentors with peer review, they typically did not get to benefit from seeing the review their mentor submitted, nor did they see the decision letter from the editor or the other reviews.

From among the many qualified applicants we chose 36 participants residing in eight different countries and 16 US states. We looked for individuals whose scientific expertise is most relevant to the scope of GENETICS and for those who have previously published a manuscript. Most of the participants are postdocs, but the group also includes senior graduate students, assistant professors, and group leaders.

In the first stage of the program, each participant completed seven hours of virtual training that included presentations by our Editor in Chief, Senior Editors, Executive Director, and Managing Editor. Participants learned about the principles and purpose of peer review, scientific misconduct, models of peer review, the journey of a manuscript at GENETICS, system navigation of the reviewer submission site, and more. While we certainly wanted to provide relevant training, we also wanted to foster a deeper sense of community between our leadership and participants.

Feedback from the training has been positive and also helpful in identifying areas of improvement. We have now shortened the training sessions by including more content in our training manual that is distributed to all participants. We will place even greater emphasis on the best practices of peer review during our second pilot, providing direct feedback and interaction with our leadership team.

“Having the editor-in-chief demonstrated the seriousness of the program.”

“It was interesting and helpful to better understand the process of review from the point of view of editors, and the process of who handles different aspects of review.”

“I think the orientation was great. I really liked that we were able to see each other and the platform worked great.”

“I think this session is very helpful. I’m preparing a manuscript, and all the rules for avoiding (unintentional) misconduct are very useful.”

The early career reviewers are now reviewing manuscripts, learning about the peer review process, testing the true scope of their own expertise, and strengthening their communication skills. They are treated like any reviewer; they receive all correspondence from the associate editor, including the decision letter and the other reviews. And the editors provide feedback to the early career reviewer.

From the perspective of the ECS participants, the program seems to be working well. They appreciate being able to see what the other reviewers wrote and have found the feedback from the editors to be valuable. Many also said the training they received helped them to gain confidence as reviewers.

We’ve learned a lot so far about the needs of our participants, editors, and authors. We are continuing to modify the program as we find ways to enhance the benefit for all involved. As with a traditional pool of reviewers, it’s challenging to find the few individuals within the community who have the expertise needed to review a manuscript. Even when there’s been a mismatch in the expertise of the early career reviewer and the topic of the manuscript, the early career reviewers still provided valuable and insightful critiques that the editors felt were worth passing on to the author.

By providing the training and support needed to ensure fair and high-quality reviews, our editors are providing mentorship for early career reviewers that will ultimately benefit all authors.

This spring, we are expanding our program to include early career reviewers for all sections of GENETICS. We encourage early career scientists to apply to join our next group of early career reviewers. 

UPDATE, July 2021: Applications for the full program are now open. Deadline: September 14, 2021.

APPLY NOW

Questions? E-mail peerreview@genetics-gsa.org.

More on this topic:

GENETICS Editor in Chief Mark Johnston on the genesis of the program.

The GSA Journals are excited to announce that we have partnered with Figshare to archive supplemental material and data from papers published in GENETICS and G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics.

When you publish a paper in GENETICS or G3, you help to catalyze scientific advances by sharing experimental reagents, results, and interpretations. For these articles to have the greatest impact, authors need to make unique research materials and data freely available to other investigators. Since 2010, the GSA Journals have committed to making data publicly accessible, and partnering with Figshare supports that commitment.

Figshare is a web-based platform designed to help academic institutions manage, disseminate, and measure the public attention of all their research outputs. Figshare can host large datasets, code freezes, and more—so authors can archive all of the data associated with their manuscripts together in one place, with no file type or file size restrictions.

When submitting a manuscript to GENETICS or G3, authors will be prompted to upload supplemental material and data via the GSA Figshare portal. During the review process, private, confidential links to the data will be shared only with editors and reviewers. These private links will have the same level of access as data currently uploaded to our manuscript review system: access is restricted to editorial staff, editors assigned to the manuscript, and reviewers who have agreed to review.

If a manuscript is not accepted for publication, the GSA Editorial Office will delete the associated data from the GSA Figshare portal. When a manuscript is accepted, the associated data will be published at Figshare to coincide with the article’s publication. Published filesets will be assigned a DOI that’s linked to the paper, and authors get to choose the type of open source license their data are published under, so they retain control over how their data are used.

Find the full Figshare details:

• http://www.genetics.org/content/prep-manuscript#supplemental
• http://www.g3journal.org/content/prep-manuscript#supplemental

Brooke LaFlamme found her career in scientific publishing through informational interviews. She recommends trainees interested in science communication fields start writing early and often. In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

What experiences have influenced your career trajectory?

When I started college, my plan was to be an English major. I’ve always enjoyed writing, and that interest has merged together with science to form my career in science publishing. I can make a narrative about it when I look back, but at the time it felt like a random walk. In my freshman year, I took a cosmology course for a general education science requirement, and the professor talked about how important the scientific method was to daily life. I remember thinking, “This sounds really cool!” Because of that class, I decided to major in a scientific field and chose molecular biology. I spent three years pushing flies around in Teri Markow’s lab at the University of Arizona and then decided to pursue my PhD in Drosophila reproduction with Mariana Wolfner at Cornell.  

After I finished my PhD, my husband moved to NYC, and that determined where I was looking for jobs geographically. I did a one-year postdoc at Weill Cornell Medical School in mammalian stem cells, but changing fields didn’t make bench work any more fun for me. I had known for some time that I didn’t really want to stay in the lab. Even though I had enjoyed grad school, I realized that doing experiments all day wasn’t for me. I would rather spend my time thinking about science, talking with scientists, and reading papers.

I wasn’t sure what kind of career I wanted, so I did a lot of google searches on “what do you do with a PhD?” and set up informational interviews to find out about different careers. I spoke with a scientific editor in the Nature Publishing Group (now Springer Nature), and he explained what the job of a journal editor entails. He also told me there was a job opening in Nature Genetics. I applied and was very lucky to get the job; I spent three and a half years at Nature Genetics before becoming Chief Editor of Communications Biology in May 2017.

What advice do you have for trainees interested in non-academic careers?

I highly recommend informational interviews. During my job search, I looked up different careers that interested me and sent out cold-call emails to people in those positions, asking if they would get coffee (or skype) with me and tell me about their job. The worst that can happen is somebody says no or doesn’t respond. But for the most part, people want to help you and share their experiences with you. Looking up job descriptions only gives you the surface. When you talk to someone, you can find out not only the good parts of the job, but also the bad parts, too, and you can use that information to figure out which careers are a better fit for you. They are also a way of networking and establishing contacts that can help you find opportunities. Another great networking tool I recommend is Toastmasters, an international club to improve public speaking. I often find interviews nerve-wracking, and going to Toastmasters meetings helped me prepare.

My biggest message is that if you are thinking about leaving academia, try not to judge yourself. I think there’s a period you go through of feeling like leaving makes me a failure, and you have to realize that’s not true. It’s unfortunate that there is still a lot of stigma associated with deciding not to do research, even though there aren’t enough faculty positions for everybody who has a PhD and that lifestyle isn’t going to appeal to everyone.

What career development activities as a trainee helped you prepare for a career in science communication/editing?

Your chances of getting a job in science communication get better the more you do science communication as a trainee. In graduate school, I took a two-day workshop on science communication. It covered everything from on-camera interviews to writing press releases and blog posts. This helped me think about how to frame my work for a general audience, and after the workshop, I decided to keep it going by starting my own blog. Some weeks, I would spend hours writing about the interesting findings of a paper, while other times I would have half an hour to write something up. I didn’t have a huge following, but it was a lot of fun. The more you can get exposure for your work and writing, the greater chance you have of someone recognizing you when they look at your CV. I think my resume stood out because my blog demonstrated that I thought about science across a wider field than just my specific area of research and could convey the content and significance of those papers—that’s pretty much what I do on a daily basis now.

What does your day as a journal editor entail?

The core of the job is reading the manuscripts that come in. We start by reading the whole paper and comparing it to articles in other publications and manuscripts that have previously been sent for review or been rejected at our journal. We start to determine what the relative advance of the paper is, what is novel about it, and whether it meets our criteria. We then decide which papers go to review and which don’t.

When I first started, rejecting papers was difficult—especially because I remembered what it was like to have my papers rejected. Occasionally, you meet with people who are angry about the decisions you’ve made. I manage that by making sure I have an objective set of criteria that I can explain to an author; this usually helps them understand the process and feel better. As editors, we understand that what we decide to publish in the journal can, to some extent, shape the direction of the field, so we take this very seriously. Our decisions take into account the journal priorities and the areas of science we would like to see advance. While I don’t personally discover new cool things anymore, I get my hands in science indirectly.

Brooke tries durian during a trip to Singapore to visit authors.

The rest of the day we spend following up with reviewers, reading and synthesizing review comments, making decisions, and corresponding with authors at all stages of the publication process. However, our job doesn’t stop at publication. We handle correspondences related to published paper and relevant critiques, and we help authors work through any issues that might arise. A lot of my time is spent talking to authors through email and on the phone. We also organize and attend conferences as well as go to labs to meet with people to discuss their research. As a chief editor, I do all those things, and I am also in charge of getting a new journal off the ground and shaping its direction. This requires more strategic thinking and marketing in addition to managing a team and training new editors. I do work at a corporation, so we have a lot of meetings about policy or administrative things, but we also get together to think about how to make scientific publishing more transparent and research more reproducible.

How do you use your genetics PhD in this position?

Most of the skills you gain in a PhD are transferable. Aside from lab skills, the ability to find and synthesize information quickly, read a scientific paper, and communicate your ideas well are all transferable skills. Genetics teaches you to think about how things work together and how you can build a system that’s translatable to most areas of science. Most directly, I make use of the skill I gained in my PhD through reading papers and talking to geneticists. I am able to make helpful suggestions when scientists ask me, “How could I improve this? What experiments could I do to make this better?” I use my graduate experience to help shape science, even if I’m not the person doing it anymore.

How does this position compare to your experience in academia?

It is a little bit of a challenge to move from academia to a non-academic, corporate environment. In academia, you are rewarded for having new ideas, trying them out, and being an individual. When you have a corporate job, it’s about staying on task, getting things done, and working as a team. We are rewarded for individual achievements, but the emphasis is on what can we can do to help the organization as a whole.

From the perspective of an editor, what advice do you have for trainees?

Having an appreciation for writing and communication, in general, is really helpful to scientists. I think it’s important for students and postdocs to be involved in the writing of their own manuscripts. When writing, think about the audience and the journal, and identify the key message before you start. You want your readers to gain something and enjoy reading your paper. It is also useful to be involved in the publication process, including responding to reviewers and corresponding with the editor. The editor is not your enemy, and you can contact us anytime in the publishing process.

If you are interested in scientific publishing, the main thing you can do is read a lot of papers— across a lot of journals and not just in your area of research. Try to get a feel for why a paper was published in this journal, and you can start to think about it as an editor. I would also recommend familiarizing yourself with the latest issues of a journal when applying to be an editor at a specific journal. Try to see if there are any papers you think the journal perhaps shouldn’t have published. If you can demonstrate that you are thoughtful by finding a paper that you thought wasn’t suitable for this journal—and the reasons why—that’s going to impress the person interviewing you. We like to be disagreed with!

About the author:

Caitlin McDonough is the Co-Chair of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a PhD Candidate in the Center for Reproductive Evolution at Syracuse University. She endeavors to highlight the varied experiences of scientists and make careers in science accessible to individuals of all identities.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

GENETICS Editor-in-Chief Mark Johnston introduces a new peer review training program for early career scientists.

“Just tell them what you think of them.” That was the response of one of my mentors when I asked him how I should review grant applications. I was a newly-minted Assistant Professor and had been asked to sit on an NIH study section. I had only a vague idea of how to go about reviewing grant applications, so I turned to my trusted colleague for advice.

I got invited back to the study section. So I must have done something right. But it felt like being tossed into the deep end of the pool before having a swimming lesson. That’s one way to learn. But perhaps it’s not the best way.

Peer-reviewers are vital to the scientific enterprise. They provide a check-and-balance for science by critically evaluating the authors’ (their peers) stories.  They check that the data support the authors’ conclusions. Are the data convincing? Does it meet statistical standards? Have the authors done the necessary controls? By answering these questions in the affirmative, peer-reviewers validate the authors’ findings; by raising concerns about these points, peer-reviewers identify errors in the work that authors surely want to avoid. And peer-reviewers provide a check of the authors’ presentation. Is it clear? Is it persuasive? In my experience, peer-review almost always helps authors improve articles.

Peer-reviewers help editors determine which stories should enter the scientific record. Reviewers must maintain high standards to protect the integrity of the literature, but they must also have reasonable expectations of authors (their peers). Science advances incrementally, after all, and reviewers and editors need to determine how much of an advance justifies readers’ attention—to judge when a story warrants becoming a brick in the Great Wall of Knowledge. It’s a big responsibility.

You’d think such an important task would require advanced training, but there’s no formal training that I know of. Many graduate programs provide their trainees with practice reviewing manuscripts and grant applications, but the scope and effectiveness of those exercises vary widely. Some, though far from all, faculty advisors provide their students opportunities to review manuscripts, often on an informal basis. This patchy system inadvertently robs many students and postdocs of the chance to hone some of the skills central to success in science—understanding the mindset and expectations of peer reviewers and editors, critical thinking, evaluating research, and providing feedback on scientific projects not directly related to your own.

But just because we’ve always done it this way, doesn’t mean it’s the only way.

During her time serving on the GSA’s Publications Committee, Early Career Liaison Aleeza Gerstein drew our attention to this inequality and variability in peer review training. Aleeza works in a field (evolutionary genetics) in which senior students and postdocs traditionally get more opportunities for inclusion in the peer review process, so she was surprised when she learned her experience was not the norm. Across our field as a whole, students and postdocs report uneven experiences in training for peer-review. Aleeza suggested that the GSA is in a good position to help train the next generation of peer reviewers. The entire GSA community could serve as a valuable resource for our early career colleagues.

With the enthusiastic support of GENETICS Senior Editor David Greenstein (now GSA Secretary and Publications Committee Chair), the Editorial Board and the Publications Committee (particularly Elyse Hope and David Fay) are working with Sonia Hall, GSA’s Director of Engagement and Development, to develop a program that will give early career GSA members real-world peer review experience.

To pilot this program, we are currently recruiting the first group of GSA member graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty to serve as peer-reviewers for the journal.

Trainee reviewers will receive training on the principles, purposes, and best practices of peer-review, as well as guidelines and models for fair reviews that are helpful to both the authors and the editors. Participants will review manuscripts submitted to GENETICS that are within their areas of interest and expertise. Just like for any other peer-reviewer, the participants’ reviews will be provided to the authors and considered by the editor in making their decisions.

The trainee reviewers will receive feedback in two ways. First, they will read the other reviews and the decision letter. Seeing how other, more experienced, reviewers do the job will reveal much about the process and nuances of the task, as well as illuminate the path of an academic paper from initial submission through to final publication. And seeing how the editor weighs the reviewers’ opinions and takes their comments into account in coming to a decision on the manuscript will demonstrate what is most salient in reviewers’ comments. Second, we want the trainee reviewers to benefit from the expertise of the GENETICS’ editorial board, so editors will provide feedback to the reviewers about their reviews. I’m hoping that will consist of more than just “tell them what you think of it.”

And beyond the world of publishing, we expect participants to benefit in many ways. Good peer reviewers are skilled at communicating specialist information in an accessible way. They are able to give feedback that is constructive and fair. Chances like this to get feedback are remarkably rare, despite the fact that an important part of being a scientist is regularly critiquing peers and mentees! Participants will demonstrate their understanding of responsible publication and authorship practices, their willingness to contribute to the discipline, along with many of those hard-to-show “soft” skills like workplace etiquette, knowing when to seek advice, time management, and reliably meeting deadlines.

Peer-review is a cornerstone of science. We should not leave training for such an important activity to chance. The editors of GENETICS look forward to working with our young colleagues to develop the journal’s next generation of peer-reviewers.

Learn more about the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program.

Geneticists increasingly depend on highly specialized software and databases. Although it is vital to the field that these resources be well documented and their benefits widely disseminated, reports of new software and databases don’t always fit the mold of a typical research paper. The structure of a conventional research article forces authors to present their tools in suboptimal ways, says G3 Associate Editor Gustavo de los Campos, which is why he helped the journal develop the new Software and Data Resources format.

The new article type is designed to make it easy for readers to understand the possibilities offered by the software and resource being described. “It’s an awesome way to present tools to the community and raise their visibility,” says de los Campos. This helps such resources to reach their full potential. “In my experience, once you make software widely available, there’s a cascade of interactions with researchers that helps identify opportunities for improvement and collaboration.”

The category is intended for novel high-quality data resources and software that solve problems not already efficiently addressed by other tools, for example, implementation of existing statistical methods for analyzing large datasets. Criteria for acceptance include the tool’s novelty, usefulness, innovation, accessibility, and in the case of software, scalability. Submit your valuable software, tools, and resources to G3 and reach the genetics community sooner!

Learn more about the Software and Data Resource format.

Transparent research starts with an unambiguous parts list. To help promote the wider use of identifiers and recognized symbols in biological research, FlyBase (with input from other model organism databases) is developing a resource for tracking and reporting reagents in a more standardized way, aiding curation into research databases.

The GSA journals are now encouraging authors to use this Reagent Table and to provide input to help the community develop and improve the concept.

The Reagent Table is provided as a spreadsheet template, a format that is convenient and flexible for the researcher, easily used by readers of research publications, and allows bulk downloads for database curation. The table is designed for use in the lab, as a research project is conducted. Unambiguous identification of not only reagents, but the specific genes studied is particularly helpful for genetic and genome databases, as well as for other researchers, helping avoid confusion around genes with similar names or symbols.

The template, detailed instructions, and an example file are available in the journals’ Instructions for Authors. Please send feedback and suggestions to genetics-gsa@thegsajournals.org.