FVIII, Protein C and the Risk of Arterial Thrombosis: More than the Sum of Its Parts.

July 4, 2018 ~ BS

maxresdefault — source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMRLLySc4w

Peer review is not a pissing contest. Peer reviewing is not about findings the smallest of errors and delay publication because of it. Peer review is not about being right. Peer review is not about rewriting the paper under review. Peer review is not about asking for yet another experiment.

Peer review is about making sure that the conclusions presented in the paper are justified by the data presented and peer review is about helping the authors get the best report on what they did.

At least that what I try to remind myself of when I write my peer review report. So what happened when I wrote a peer review about a paper presenting data on the two hemostatic factors protein C and FVIII in relation to arterial thrombosis. These two proteins are known to have a direct interaction with each other. But does this also translate into the situation where a combination of the two risk factors of the “have both, get extra risk for free”?

There are two approaches to test so-called interaction: statistical and biological. The authors presented one approach, while I thought the other approach was better suited to analyze and interpret the data. Did that result in an academic battle of arguments, or perhaps a peer review deadlock? No, the authors were quite civil to entertain my rambling thoughts and comments with additional analyses and results, but convinced me in the end that their approach have more merit in this particular situation. The editor of thrombosis and hemostasis saw this all going down and agreed with my suggestion that an accompanying editorial on this topic to help the readers understand what actually happened during the peer review process. The nice thing about this is that the editor asked me to that editorial, which can be found here, the paper by Zakai et al can be found here.

All this learned me a thing or two about peer review: Cordial peer review is always better (duh!) than a peer review street brawl, and that sharing aspects from the peer review process could help readers understand the paper in more detail. Open peer review, especially the parts where peer review is not anonymous and reports are open to readers after publication, is a way to foster both practices. In the meantime, this editorial will have to do.

Associate editor at BMC Thrombosis Journal

January 8, 2017January 8, 2017 ~ BS

In the week just before Christmas, HtC approached me by asking whether or not I would like to join the editorial board of BMC Thrombosis Journal as an Associate Editor. the aims and scope of the journal, taken from their website:

“Thrombosis Journal is an open-access journal that publishes original articles on aspects of clinical and basic research, new methodology, case reports and reviews in the areas of thrombosis.Topics of particular interest include the diagnosis of arterial and venous thrombosis, new antithrombotic treatments, new developments in the understanding, diagnosis and treatments of atherosclerotic vessel disease, relations between haemostasis and vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, immunology and obesity.”

I talked to HtC, someone at BMC, as well as some of my friends and colleagues whether or not this would be a wise thing to do. Here is an overview of the points that came up:

Experience: Thrombosis is the field where I grew up in as a researcher. I know the basics, and have some extensive knowledge on specific parts of the field. But with my move to Germany, I started to focus on stroke, so one might wonder why not use your time to work with a stroke related journal. My answer is that the field of thrombosis is a stroke related field and that my position in both worlds is a good opportunity to learn from both fields. Sure, there will be topics that I have less knowledge off, but here is where an associate editor should rely on expert reviewers and fellow editors.

This new position will also provide me with a bunch of new experiences in itself: for example, sitting on the other side of the table in a peer review process might help me to better understand a rejection of one of my own papers. Bottom line is that I think that I both bring and gain relevant experiences in this new position.

Time: These things cost time. A lot. Especially when you need to learn the skills needed for the job, like me. But learning these skills as an associate editor is an integral part of the science apparatus, and I am sure that the time that I invest will help me develop as a scientist. Also, the time that I need to spend is not necessary the type of time that I currently lack, i.e. writing time. For writing and doing research myself I need decent blocks of time to dive in and focus — 4+ hours if possible. The time I need to perform my associate editor tasks is more fragmented: find peer reviewers, read their comments and make a final judgement are relative fragmented activities and I am sure that as soon as I get the hang of it I can squeeze those activities within shorter slots of time. Perhaps a nice way to fill those otherwise lost 30 minutes between two meetings?

Open science: Thrombosis journal is part of the Biomed central family. As such, it is an 100% OA journal. It is not that I am an open science fanboy or sceptic, but I am very curious how OA is developing and working with an OA journal will help me to understand what OA can and cannot deliver.

Going over these points, I am convinced that I can contribute to the journal with my experience in the fields of coagulation, stroke and research methodology. Also, I think that the time that it will take to learn the skills needed are an investment that in the end will help me to grow as a researcher. So, I replied HtC with a positive answer. Expect email requesting for a peer review report soon!

preconference workshop ‘crash course peer review’ cancelled

April 14, 2014April 14, 2014 ~ BS

I worked together with some partners on a new workshop for young epidemiologist. The title says it all: WEON preconference workshop ‘crash course peer review’.

Unfortunately, we had to cancel the workshop because the number of participants was to low to justify the effort of not only myself, but especially all the other teachers. I think it is a pity that we had to cancel, but by cancelling we still have a fresh start whenever we want to try again in a different format.

Whilst preparing this workshop I noticed that peer review, or a better term would be refereeing, is not popular. It is seen as a task that task up to much time, with too much political consequences and little reward etc. New initiatives like Pubmed commons and other post publication peer review systems are regarded by some as answers to some of these problems. But what is the future of refereeing, when young epidemiologist are not intrinsically motivated to contribute time and effort to the publication process? Only time will tell.

For those who are still interested in this crash course, please contact me via email.

2013 advisory committee of JTH

November 14, 2012December 4, 2012 ~ BS

I just got an email asking whether I would like to join the advisory committee of the JTH for the year of 2013. What a surprise! The text in the email reads:

[…]Our Advisory Board is composed of our most active reviewers and we expect members to review for us from time to time when papers fall within their expertise.[…]

I am truly honored with this invitation, and although I do not yet fully understand the difference between a regular reviewer and a member of the advisory board, I am really enthusiastic to help the journal to reach for and maintain the high academic standard of their articles. Recently, I’ve been wondering about the peer review system: should we change it in order to help prevent publication bias / scientific misconduct? Should we open up the system and urge reviewers to relinquish their anonymity like they ask at the PLoS journals?