Adv Physiol Educ AdInstruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Advan. Physiol. Edu. 33: 80, 2009; doi:10.1152/advan.90216.2008
1043-4046/09 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Curran-Everett, D.
Right arrow Articles by Benos, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Curran-Everett, D.
Right arrow Articles by Benos, D. J.
ADV PHYSIOL EDUC 33:80, 2009
© 2009 American Physiological Society

LETTER

Statistics, authors, and reviewers: the heart of the matter

Douglas Curran-Everett1,2,3 and Dale J. Benos4

1Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, National Jewish Health, and Departments of 2Biostatistics and Informatics and 3Physiology and Biophysics, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado; and 4Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. Curran-Everett, Div. of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, M222, National Jewish Health, 1400 Jackson St., Denver, CO 80206 (e-mail: EverettD{at}NJHealth.org).

In 2004, when we proposed guidelines for reporting statistics (3), we did so from the sole perspective of an author.1 But we recognize that all of us–authors and reviewers alike–must strive to use and report statistics in ways that are consistent with best practices (4). We also understand there is long-standing inertia that must be overcome before standard deviations, confidence intervals, and precise P values are reported routinely in journals published by the American Physiological Society (APS). In his article (8), Morton recounts his encounters with this inertia.

Although the guidelines (3–5) continue to provoke discussion at APS Editor meetings, there remains a lack of consensus among the Editors and the Publications Committee about endorsing the guidelines as formal reporting requirements for APS journals. At least one Editor, however, has recommended to his Associate Editors that the guidelines be followed.

It would simplify the lives of authors who are comfortable with our guidelines, but it might be detrimental if, at present, APS Publications required authors and reviewers to follow them: it is risky to mandate reform, especially reform that may be unfamiliar. Instead, we believe authors must bear the responsibility of advocating for some statistic2 or for some rare statistical procedure. Why should the reporting of the statistics differ from the reporting of the science? It is this notion of communication that is the heart of the matter.

The question now becomes, how does an author communicate effectively with a reviewer?

Address an issue before a reviewer can ask about it. In the first version of your manuscript, explain and support with references anything you suspect will draw the attention of a reviewer. You want to help a reviewer understand why you did what you did. And you want to anticipate and address an issue before it creates a question.

Argue for what you believe in. A reviewer makes a comment for some reason, but not all comments obligate you to revise your manuscript. Most reviewers realize that disagreements are part of science. If you disagree with a reviewer, justify your stance.

If a reviewer is intractable or unreasonable, involve the Associate Editor. Most reviewers comment or question to help you justify something or to help you improve your paper. Some reviewers, however, may be unwilling to listen to your considered responses. If you present evidence and references that support your case but a reviewer refuses to hear the evidence, then summarize the facts of the case to the Associate Editor. It is the responsibility of the Associate Editor and–if necessary–the Editor to supervise the process of review and to arbitrate disputes.

As we have written before (4), all of us gravitate toward the familiar. In science, the familiar may escape our notice, but the novel most certainly grabs our attention. Some reviewers may challenge our guidelines for reporting statistics simply by virtue of the apparent novelty of those guidelines.

But it is difficult for even the most recalcitrant reviewer to direct an author to dismiss guidelines that embody fundamental concepts in statistics (6), that are consistent with Scientific Style and Format: the CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers [the style manual used by APS Publications (2)], that are consistent with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals [reporting guidelines used by 650 biomedical journals (7)], and that reflect mainstream statistical concepts and accepted statistical practices (5).

Footnotes

1 These guidelines can be accessed through the American Physiological Society Information for Authors (1). Back

2 For example, a standard deviation, confidence interval, or precise P value. Back

Received for publication December 19, 2008. Accepted for publication December 30, 2008.

REFERENCES

  1. American Physiological Society.Instructions for Preparing Your Manuscript (online).http://www.the-aps.org/publications/i4a/prep_manuscript.htm#manuscript_sections [512009].
  2. Council of Science Editors, Style Manual Subcommittee.Scientific Style and Format: the CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (7th ed.).Reston, VA:Rockefeller Univ. Press,2006.
  3. Curran-Everett, D, Benos, DJ.Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society.Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol287:L259–L261,2004.
  4. Curran-Everett, D, Benos, DJ.Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel.Adv Physiol Educ31:295–298,2007.
  5. Curran-Everett, D, Benos, DJ.Last Word on Perspectives "Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel".Adv Physiol Educ31:306–307,2007.
  6. Curran-Everett, D, Taylor, S, Kafadar, K.Fundamental concepts in statistics: elucidation and illustration.J Appl Physiol85:775–786,1998.
  7. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (online).http://www.icmje.org/index.html#manuscript [512009].
  8. Morton, JP.Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?Adv Physiol Educ;doi:10.1152/advan.90207.2008.




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Curran-Everett, D.
Right arrow Articles by Benos, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Curran-Everett, D.
Right arrow Articles by Benos, D. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2009 by the American Physiological Society.