A Look Back from the Helm of The Plant Cell

Dear friends and colleagues,

It has been a pleasure to work with a superb team of editors and staff at The Plant Cell since 2015. The Editor-in-Chief position is one with no holidays: manuscripts and decision letters arrive in my “in box” every day, and as an author myself, I understand the importance of moving the papers through the system in a timely way. Therefore, one of my priorities was to respond quickly to authors, and we have been largely successful on that front. A second priority was to focus on informed peer review.

In 2015, we transitioned to a three-stage review process. In the first stage, every manuscript is reviewed internally by members of the editorial board to determine whether the work appears to meet the bar for publication—specifically, does it advance the field? I have heard from some of our authors that the first stage is perceived as a high bar—that it takes just one editor to veto further review. In reality, the intent underlying multi-editor pre-review is the opposite! We want the paper evaluated by editors with different perspectives in order to increase the likelihood that an editor views the submission as novel and important for a field. Our philosophy has been that a single enthusiastic editor can move the submission to the second stage. Multi-editor pre-review is especially important today when the scope of a project can be very broad and no single editor may have the expertise to fully appreciate a submission. During pre-review, several editors have the opportunity to suggest reviewers for the second stage, which broadens the reviewer base and ensures that all aspects of a paper can be adequately reviewed.

For a paper to pass the first stage of review, the message concerning “novelty” and “substance” must be easily evident in a quick read of the paper. The editors are not necessarily experts in the topic of the submission, and the authors need to get the message across clearly. The cover letter is one vehicle for describing how the submission fits into the field and what the advance is. The punch line or the take-home message should be clear and undiluted by peripheral observations. If the editors determine that the submission is unsuitable for the journal, we can offer a decision in about a week, which allows the authors to move promptly to another journal. During my tenure as Editor-in-Chief, ∼40 to 50% of the submissions have moved to the second stage. I have expanded the editorial board considerably by inviting Guest Editors and Consulting Editors to increase the expertise available at the first stage.

The second stage involves external peer review where two to three experts in the subject matter are asked to evaluate whether the claims in the submission are substantiated by the data presented. At this stage, the work gets deeper scrutiny. Again, clarity of thought and expression, including in the figure legends and experimental procedures, is critical for moving a submission forward in the process. As Editor, I note that peripheral observations can sink a paper at this stage. Because The Plant Cell does not hold authors to a page limit or a figure limit, there is a tendency for authors to throw in preliminary observations, which can distract a reviewer, especially if such observations are not as thoroughly supported by data. I urge authors to focus on the key big question in the paper and report peripheral findings elsewhere (e.g., Plant Direct).

The third stage of review involves collaboration between the participants in the first two stages— the external referees with the members of the editorial board. Here, the Reviewing Editor takes the lead in building a consensus—specifically, what does the author need to do to support the claims (so that the journal can publish the work)? It also provides an opportunity for the editor to clarify components in the review. It is not necessary that the reviewers’ opinion be unanimous; yet, we would like authors to consider all reviewers’ comments. I have urged authors to submit a “response” to reviewers rather than a “rebuttal.” The relationship between author and reviewer is ideally cooperative rather than combative. About half the papers that enter the third stage of review are published in The Plant Cell, typically after one (sometimes two) revisions. I urge authors to opt for publication of the Peer Review Report so that readers can view the peer review process for their papers.

Many of us view the peer review process as a battle, and with good reason. Each of us has had good work rejected by under-informed reviewers. The Plant Cell has an appeals process, and we do reevaluate papers when authors disagree with the reviewers and editors. We understand that young scientists need jobs and we all need funding to continue our work, and this depends on publication. Perhaps preprint servers may change the author-reviewer-editor interaction. The Plant Cell supports bioRxiv and offers authors the opportunity to post articles contemporaneously with submission. Try it out!

During my tenure, I also added a cadre of early-career Assistant Features Editors who promote published papers by writing In Briefs, and in China, by translating article summaries (Nutshells) on the WeChat platform. If you as a junior investigator would like to be part of the journal, apply to be an Assistant Features Editor.

I thank our authors, reviewers, and editors for the work they have done for the journal and for everything I have learned from them. I am also grateful for the new friends and colleagues I have gained in the last 5 years. Settling in to my new laboratory in Berkeley has been time-consuming, and I am now eager to use my time to write some papers from my own group. I leave the position in the capable hands of Blake Meyers, renowned for his contributions in small RNA biology, with more than a decade of experience with The Plant Cell, commitment to scientific rigor, and, importantly, fair peer review. Please support him by submitting your best work to The Plant Cell and following his lead as a reviewer and editor.