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.

As the largest and most diverse group among active researchers, early career researchers are vital to the future of publishing, and they have much to offer the scientific community. Bringing new perspectives and often working at the forefront of new technologies, these researchers will decide where and how they want to publish, and as the peer reviewers of the future, they will play an essential role in ensuring the continued high quality of published research. Recognizing their important role within the scientific enterprise, GSA strives to engage early career researchers in the peer review process from the earliest stages of their careers.

As part of Peer Review Week, we are featuring the GSA Journals Peer Review Training Program, which brings early career researchers directly into the peer review process. Here, we provide an update on the program, highlighting changes we have made over the years as well as ways our program is continuing to grow.

Changes and growth in the GSA Journals Peer Review Training Program

Launched in 2017 as the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program, the GSA Journals Peer Review Training Program was developed in response to community feedback indicating a lack of formal training in peer review. It has been offering training and real-world peer review experience to early career researchers from around the world ever since. 

To date, over 350 early career researchers have participated in the program. It is important that our applicant pool is representative of the diversity among early career researchers, so we have worked to identify and remove barriers from the application process as the program has evolved. 

• To avoid using career stage as a proxy for expertise, we ask those reviewing applications to focus on the expertise presented in the application rather than where the applicant is in their career.  
• We strive to include participants who otherwise lack the opportunity for training and experience in peer review, asking applicants to detail their lack of opportunity to peer review. Examples might include attending a non-R01 or non-high impact institution, working in a low-impact lab, having a mentor who doesn’t offer opportunities for or training in peer review, or other factors. 
• We eliminated recommendation letters to ensure that everyone can apply regardless of their network or connections. This also helps level the playing field to a degree, allowing applicants to stand on their own merits.

The 2023 group of participants live in 20 countries. Though the majority currently reside in the U.S.A., we recognize that some are likely international students. We are indeed reaching scientists in the earliest stages of their careers, as the majority of participants are graduate students, followed by postdocs. Over half of our participants identify as female. We are pleased to be serving a diverse group of early career researchers from around the world.

We are continually exploring ways for the program to grow and are excited to expand the program to G3 in early 2024. We have updated the name of the program to reflect this change. Across their two years in the program, participants will spend their first year reviewing manuscripts for GENETICS before spending their second year reviewing at G3—or vice versa. Expanding the program across both GSA Journals will benefit both participants and our journals:

• Benefits to participants:
  Reviewing papers submitted to journals that differ in scope broadens the experience for participants. Expanding to both journals allows the program to serve an increased number of participants.
• Benefits to our journals:
  Including early career reviewers at our journals increases the fairness of peer review. It also expands and diversifies our existing reviewer pool as program alumni often continue to review for our journals after completing the program.

As the publishing landscape shifts and evolves, the need for peer reviewers to provide thoughtful and constructive feedback will continue to be vital in ensuring the quality and credibility of published research. Commitment to including early career researchers in this process is a crucial part of ensuring quality peer review into the future.

We are excited about the progress the GSA Journals Peer Review Training Program has made and will continue to evaluate ways our program can evolve to support the large and diverse group of early career researchers in our field.

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 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.

Lorenzo Gallicchio

Postdoc, Stanford University

Maiko Kitaoka

Postdoc, Whitehead Institute

Marianoel Pereira-Gómez

Postdoc, Institut Pasteur de Montevideo

Marijne Vandebergh

Postdoc, VIB-UAntwerp Center for Molecular Neurology

Melissa Drown

Graduate Student, University of Miami

Michael Church

Postdoc, Stowers Institute

Rafal Donczew

Assistant Professor, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

Rinalda Proko

Graduate Student, University of Arkansas

Sandeep Kumar

Graduate Student, University of Princeton

Sarah Robinson-Thiewes

Postdoc, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital

Sruthi Chappidi

Computational Biologist, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Tommy O’Haren

Graduate Student, Emory University

Umer Saleem

Graduate Student, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research

Victoria Castro

Graduate Student, University of Texas, El Paso

Vincent Nyangwara

Graduate Student, African Institute of Biomedical Science and Technology

Xuwen Li

Graduate Student, Baylor College of Medicine

Yu Sugihara

Graduate Student, Kyoto University

Not Pictured:

Wendy Aquino Nunez, Graduate Student at University of Kansas

Assunta Maria Casale, Postdoc at Sapienza University of Rome

Jae Hak Son, Postdoc at Rutgers University

Hua Yang, Reseach Specialist at University of Missouri, Columbia

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.

As we wrap up Peer Review Week 2020, here’s a look at how the GSA journals help build trust in peer review.

Our data availability policy means that reviewers and editors can really dig into the data during the review process—and that readers can access the data and build on it moving forward!

Expert editors and reviewers handle your paper with an eye toward improving it. Effective peer review makes your paper the best it can be.

Peer review training is varied & informal, which is why we developed the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program. We give early career scientists the chance to learn in a live-journal environment, helping pave the way for the future of peer review. To learn more about the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program, check out this newly-published Science Editor article written by GENETICS editorial staff: Supporting the Next Generation of Researchers: GENETICS Peer Review Training Program. 

Why do we do peer review? Because your peers and other experts in the field help improve your work and strengthen the scientific literature.

Open Peer Review is coming to GENETICS in January 2021! For all the details, see today’s editorial Opening Up Peer Review from Executive Editor Tracey DePellegrin and Editor in Chief Mark Johnston.

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.