Common Problems That Impact Peer Review

This presentation will review the most common issues that affect how reviewers see a manuscript submission. These include clarity, use of figures, and attention to existing research, especially establishing the significance and novelty of the work, and how to frame a narrative. I will also address responding to peer review. The focus will be on the biological science perspective (Journals of Gerontology Series A), but these issues are relevant to all submissions to GSA journals.

Skill decay following Basic Life Support training: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionSurvival from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is lower in the UK than in several developed nations. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with increased rates of survival to hospital discharge following OHCA, prompting the introduction of several initiatives by the UK government to increase rates of bystander CPR, including the inclusion of Basic Life Support (BLS) teaching within the English national curriculum. While there is clear benefit in this, increasing evidence suggests poor retention of skills following BLS teaching. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the literature regarding skill decay following BLS training, reporting particularly the time period over which this occurs, and which components of would-be rescuers’ performance of the BLS algorithm are most affected.Methods and analysisA search will be conducted to identify studies in which individuals have received BLS training and received subsequent assessment of their skills at a later date. A search strategy comprising relevant Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords has been devised with assistance from an experienced librarian. Relevant databases will be searched with titles, abstract and full-text review conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted from included studies by two reviewers, with meta-analysis conducted if the appropriate preconditions (such as limited heterogeneity) are met.Ethic and disseminationNo formal ethical approval is required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated in the form of manuscript submission to a relevant journal and presentation at relevant meetings. To maximise the public’s access to this review’s findings, any scientific report will be accompanied by a lay summary posted via social media channels, and a press release disseminated to national and international news agencies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237233.

The Journal Review Process

This chapter reviews the journal submission and review process, starting with navigating manuscript submission sites and proceeding through editorial review, peer review, editorial decisions, revising and resubmitting manuscripts, developing reviewer response letters, finalizing manuscripts, and correcting publisher proofs. The chapter provides an in-depth tutorial on responding to reviewer requests, prioritizing which requests to respond to first, how to respond to different editorial styles, and how to use the response letter to “push back” against reviewer requests without being combative. The chapter also offers suggestions for handling conflicting reviewer requests, requests for new analyses, and how to revise a paper when new analyses change the message or take away previously significant findings.

State of the Journal, 2021

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) retains its ranking as the top-rated occupational therapy journal in North America by maintaining its commitment to publishing high-quality research aimed at occupational therapy professionals. As the needs and scope of the profession continue to expand, AJOT will continue to serve as a resource to practitioners, academics, and administrators to help guide best practices. Communication and engagement with readers will be facilitated through the new AJOT website as well as the new AJOT: Authors and Issues series. The journal seeks to expand its scope through its website, manuscript submission platform, and new ways to engage readers.

State of the Journal, 2021

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) retains its ranking as the top-rated occupational therapy journal in North America by maintaining its commitment to publishing high-quality research aimed at occupational therapy professionals. As the needs and scope of the profession continue to expand, AJOT will continue to serve as a resource to practitioners, academics, and administrators to help guide best practices. Communication and engagement with readers will be facilitated through the new AJOT website as well as the new AJOT: Authors and Issues series. The journal seeks to expand its scope through its website, manuscript submission platform, and new ways to engage readers.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind The conference papers were double-blind reviewed, where the identity of both author and reviewer on the papers will be hidden. The process is started by manuscript submission to EasyChair- web-based conference management software system. The editorial team then doing plagiarism check using DrillBit plagiarism software on submitted papers. The plagiarism process is under no-repository mode. If the plagiarism result exceeds 10%, the paper will be returned to the author for revision and request for new submission. For papers passed the similarity checks, the editorial member will then assign the papers to two reviewers for topic-related content review within designated time limits. All reviewers will have access link to the papers to evaluate and judge substantial indicators, such as: abstract sufficiently informative; clarity in the presentation of findings; methodology appropriate to study; results or conclusion supported by data analysis; and originality/novelty of finding. Clarity of figures and texts are also the main concern. The reviewers can also write their constructive critics directly in the EasyChair and put their judgement for the papers to be: (1) accepted and continued for camera-ready version, (2) accepted with minor revision, (3) accepted with major revision, or (4) rejected. Editors will notify all authors about the review results by email. • Number of submissions received: 250 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 210 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 115 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 210 / 250 x 100 = 46% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews • Total number of reviewers involved: 25 reviewers Address: Dr. Veerendrakumar C Khed (5894), Professor, Organizing Secretary ICACE-2021 Research Group Head (Structural Engg) Department of Civil Engineering, K L Deemed to be UNIVERSITY,Guntur. Phone: +91 9480374757, Mail: [email protected]

Confrontment and solution to gonadotropin resistance and low oocyte retrieval in in vitro fertilization for type I BPES: a case series with review of literature

Background FOXL2 mutations in human cause Blepharophimosis, ptosis, and epicanthus inversus syndrome (BPES). While type II BPES solely features eyelid abnormality, type I BPES involves not only eyelid but also ovary, leading to primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) and female infertility. Current mainstream reproductive option for type I BPES is embryo or oocyte donation. Attempts on assisted reproductive technology (ART) aiming biological parenthood in this population were sparse and mostly unsuccessful. Case presentation Two Chinese type I BPES patients with low anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) and elevated follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) presented with primary infertility in their early 30s. Genetic studies confirmed two heterozygous duplication mutations that were never reported previously in East Asian populations. They received in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment and both exhibited resistance to gonadotropin and difficulty in retrieving oocytes in repeated cycles. Doubled to quadrupled total gonadotropin doses were required to awaken follicular response. Patient 1 delivered a baby girl with the same eyelid phenotype and patient 2 had ongoing live intrauterine pregnancy at the time of manuscript submission. Conclusions This is the second reported live birth of biological offspring in type I BPES patients, and first success using IVF techniques. It confirmed that ART is difficult but feasible in type I BPES. It further alerts clinicians and genetic counsellors to type female BPES patients with caution in view of the precious and potentially narrowed reproductive window.