The peer-review process.

Most authors experience that “sinking feeling” when reviewers’ comments and recommendations lead to rejection of a manuscript or the need for multiple revisions. It is important to bear in mind that this happens to most, if not all, scientists. Many times the reviewer or editor is correct, and with suitable revision, a better paper is ultimately published. Sometimes it is not. The author can then publish the work elsewhere and have the pleasure of telling colleagues of the mistake a journal made in not publishing a seminal piece of work. Few of us tell of the rejected papers in which the reviewer correctly identified a “fatal flaw”! For a journal editor, there is another “sinking feeling” moment: when a paper is published with major problems and later withdrawn by the authors. The journal Nature recently noted that “we do already seek to ensure that major claims are backed by rigorous data and argument” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/ full/444971b.html). The benefits (or otherwise) of peer review have been subject to much debate. There is a strong belief by scientists that peer review works, but this is not necessarily supported by the evidence (http://www. the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/) However, it is contended that without peer review, confidence in the science would be greatly eroded. Poultry Science has a rigorous system of reviewing papers submitted. I will describe the peer-review system that is employed by this journal. First, authors indicate which section of the journal is most appropriate for their paper. When papers are received electronically, the section editor (of the section selected by the authors) assigns the manuscript to at least two reviewers. One of the reviewers is usually an associate editor of the journal. There should not be a conflict of interest (personal or scientific) between the reviewer and the author. The selected reviewers receive an e-mail letting them know that they have a manuscript to review. It is hoped that the paper is reviewed in a timely and professional manner. The journal relies on the sound judgment of reviewers. This takes the time of the reviewer and is greatly underappreciated. If the reviewer is late submitting the review, e-mail reminders are sent. When two reviews are available on a paper, the section editor automatically receives an e-mail stating that the reviews are complete. Usually the section editor makes the decision whether to recommend that the paper be accepted, revised (requiring either a major or minor