Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1.
The 2023 JPET editorial fellows. Pictured in the top row are Mahmoud Salama Ahmed (Texas Tech University), Patrick Glassman (Temple University), Jace Jones-Tabah (Montreal Neurologic Institute), Mayur K. Ladumor (University of Washington), and Catharine Mielnik (University of Toronto). Pictured in the bottom row are Cristina Peterson (University of Minnesota), Nir Qvit (Bar-Ilan University), Julie Rageul (Stony Brook University), Freeborn Rwere (Stanford University), and Zhichao Zhou (Karolinska Institute).
- Fig. 2.
Advice for JPET fellows with tips for before and during the fellowship program.
- Fig. 3.
An approach to peer review at JPET. Critical elements considered during the review process of a manuscript have three domains: the relevance to JPET, novelty, and quality of the submitted manuscript.
Tables
Section Description Summary Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript, highlighting the rationale behind the study and main findings. Overall strengths Outline the manuscript's major strengths, including its potential impact on the field, unique contributions and how the research advances scientific understanding or application. Major concerns List significant issues that need addressing, such as: Abstract lacking elements such as a brief background, research problem, results, conclusions, and applications
Introduction lacking background on the topic, research problem, rationale, and objective for conducting the study
Unclear or unjustified aims and hypotheses
Lack of clear, reproducible methods or study design details
Results not clearly presented or lacking appropriate controls and statistical analysis
Insufficient evidence supporting the model or interpretation of results
Discussion lacking multiple viewpoints, study limitations, compare or contrast with existing literature, contributions to current knowledge, and future directions or perspectives
Conclusions not well supported by data or failing to address study aims
Lack of substantial contributions to scientific knowledge gap
Minor concerns Detail less critical but still relevant concerns, including: Clarity and relevance of the title and running title
Inadequate details on subject selection and statistics for studies involving animal/human subjects
Adequacy and appropriateness of references
Manuscript structure or language issues affecting clarity
Whether acronyms are explained at first use
Self-explanatory figure and table legends and high-resolution figures
Adherence to submission guidelines and overall writing quality
Comments to the Editor A concise summary of your evaluation, highlighting key concerns or standout aspects of the manuscript, including its quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and/or any ethical issues
