REVIEWERS OF THE YEAR
Reviewers of the Year 2016. Fertility
and Sterility celebrates excellence
in our world class reviewers
Valerie Baker, M.D., Stanford, California
Due to the outstanding dedication and commitment as reviewers for Fertility and Sterility, we
have named 3 reviewers of the year 2016!
VALERIE BAKER, M.D.
How does peer reviewing for
the Journal benet your
career?
V.B.: Reviewing manuscripts has
helped me to think more critically about
the medical literature as well as about
the design, execution, and presentation
of my own clinical research. Providing
feedback to authors who have submit-
ted a manuscript I think also can help
me to be a better teacher for the trainees
who are interpreting the literature and
writing papers with me. By being a
reviewer, I essentially get practice in
providing constructive feedback.
Have any of the articles you
reviewed changed your daily
practice?
V.B.: Yes, I have found many of the
articles to have direct relevance to clin-
VOL. 108 NO. 1 / JULY 2017
Elizabeth Ginsburg, M.D., Boston,
Massachusetts
ical practice. Although I cant be too
specic without compromising the
condentiality of the review process, I
can say that when I review a high qual-
ity paper, it will help me to either feel
reassured about my current practice or
may lead me to think about doing
something new or different.
Do you see your role as a
peer reviewer as educational
for the author as well as
yourself?
V.B.: Yes, I truly hope that we re-
viewers are able to help to improve
the quality of the authors submitted
manuscript, and perhaps even help
the authors to improve the quality of
their future studies. My intent in
providing a review is not just to recom-
mend that a manuscript be accepted or
not, but also to be helpful to the au-
thors who submitted the paper. I
believe that anyone who submits a pa-
Catherine Racowsky, Ph.D., Boston,
Massachusetts
per puts a lot of work into the study
and I respect this effort. From my
own experience in submitting papers,
I know that reviewers have so often re-
quested clarications that improved
the quality of the manuscript. I am
also grateful to reviewers who have
given me insights that have helped
me in future work.
What types of trends do you
see developing as you
review papers in the
Journal?
V.B.: The quality of the submitted
manuscripts has steadily improved.
To be more specic, it seems as though
the studies are including larger num-
ber of patients, with good study
design, and more in depth statistical
analysis than in the more distant
past. Many papers are now being sub-
mitted which are highly relevant to
clinical practice.
1
REVIEWERS OF THE YEAR
What do you look for in an ideal paper?
V.B.: For clinical papers, it is important that the authors
include a clear description of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
If the study is observational, it is helpful for the authors to
provide as much detail as possible regarding criteria for treat-
ment decisions, such as why one group of patients received a
medication and another group did not. It is also important
that the authors clearly state the research questions, accu-
rately present the key ndings in tables or gures, and help
the reader to understand the key take-home messages in the
ELIZABETH GINSBURG, M.D.
How does peer reviewing for the Journal
benet your career?
E.G.: Peer reviewing for the Journal helps keep me abreast of
the eld and in some cases inspires me to consider alternative
ways of addressing and answering questions. Although I edit
trainees papers frequently, it also helps keep my editorial
skills sharp.
Have any of the articles you reviewed
changed your daily practice?
E.G.: I generally will not change my practice based on one
paper, but certainly novel ndings inspire me to research
topics more and to consider changes in my practice.
Do you see your role as a peer reviewer as
educational for the author as well as yourself?
E.G.: I try to address issues with a paper as I would that of a
trainee, and I learn something from every trainee just as I do
with reviews. I am sure most reviewers, including myself, are
very busy with their own practices and in some cases research
and teaching. At times papers we review are decient in orga-
nization or the selection of control group, or data analysis,
and can be sad to read; we all know how much work goes
into each paper. I always keep in mind that the authors may
be inexperienced and I hope that reviewing their paper step
by step is helpful not only to help them improve the current
paper, but to help them design better studies in the future. I
CATHERINE RACOWSKY, Ph.D.
How does peer reviewing for the Journal
benet your career?
C.R.: Despite over 25 years in the eld of clinical ART, I
continue to be challenged by every single review that I
perform. In order to provide a constructive review, one has
to critically understand the subject matter and methods at
2 VOL. 108 NO. 1 / JULY 2017
text. The introduction and discussion should be succinct to
help the reader to understand why the authors chose to
examine a particular research question and how their ndings
t in with the literature. Although it is important to cite key
references and very helpful to have additional references for
those who wish to read more about the topic, it isnt necessary
for the manuscript to be a comprehensive review of the liter-
ature. It is also very important that the authors not overstate
their ndings. The conclusions should match the major nd-
ings from the paper.
think its important to review carefully, starting with the
introduction, always with a careful analysis of methods,
and so on straight through the conclusion, as I would do
with a trainee. As a person who has a tendency towards impa-
tience it is a helpful process and reminds me to be patient, and
to always read papers methodically.
What types of trends do you see developing
as you review papers in the Journal?
E.G.: I am seeing more high quality submissions, with larger
samples sized, and more randomized trials. It is sad to still oc-
casionally see large datasets but with a lack of appropriate
control or comparison groups.
What do you look for in an ideal paper?
E.G.: I mainly review clinical papers. I am looking for an
appropriate control or comparison group and proper statisti-
cal analysis based on the data. It is very important that the
methods be detailed. For example a paper on IVF outcomes
should always describe the patient population, including the
entry criteria for IVF and ovulation induction protocols
used. It is also critical that the conclusion follows from the re-
sults rather than being an extrapolation that is not based on
the ndings. Less critically, the introduction and discussion
should be focused on the purpose of the particular paper;
neither is meant to be a complete review of the literature. I
like an introduction to be no longer than one page double-
spaced, which is about 3 paragraphs. As long as discussions
are focused, they can be of any length.
hand. Whether on a familiar topic or not, I am prompted to
delve into the literature, to better understand how a particular
contribution may address a gap in our eld. Peer reviewing
for Fertility and Sterility provides an opportunity for rst-
hand insight into cutting-edge submissions ahead of print.
This may occasionally effect a more timely change in the con-
tent of my teaching materials. However, more importantly, it
often provides me with a fresh perspective on my own
research, or that of my mentees or colleagues.

Have any of the articles you reviewed
changed your daily practice?
C.R.: I learn something from every paper that I review,
whether this is a new concept, technique, pathway, or statis-
tical approach. The embryology eld has seen an explosion in
technology over the last decade with, for example, consider-
able emphasis on time-lapse imaging and continued develop-
ment and application of methods for preimplantation genetic
testing. The intriguing early investigations on time-lapse im-
aging prompted my team to pursue a pilot RCT to assess the
efcacy of this technology for clinical embryo selection.
Do you see your role as a peer reviewer as
educational for the author as well as yourself?
C.R.: My answer to this question is a resounding yes! I medicine.
view the peer-review process as a critical safety-net for med-
ical literature. A reviewer has the opportunity to help guide
and rene the shape of a study and, if there is promise for
acceptance, the nal version of the manuscript. At heart, I
am an educator. Through my reviews and critiques, my goal
is to provide constructive comments and to raise points that
the authors might not otherwise have considered. Without
question, though, I learn as much if not more than the authors
during this process.
What types of trends do you see developing
as you review papers in the Journal?
C.R.: Trends in the submissions to Fertility and Sterility
reect, I think, acknowledgement of previous limitations in
VOL. 108 NO. 1 / JULY 2017
Fertility and Sterility
obstetrical and gynecological research. For several years
now, the Journal has moved away from publishing retrospec-
tive studies and case reports and is now more focused on
reporting RCTs, meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
There are also more submissions regarding the genetics of
disease, for example, for recurrent pregnancy loss, endometri-
osis or PCOS. Finally, there has been an increase in publica-
tions from our international colleagues, which reects
both the expansion in research endeavors worldwide and
acknowledgement that Fertility and Sterility is held in high
regard on the global stage. Two of the important written voi-
ces of our society are through Fertility and Sterility and
the sister journal, The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and
Genetics. Continued synergism between the two will create
an even stronger presence on the international stage with re-
gards to contemporary and future directions in reproductive
What do you look for in an ideal paper?
C.R.: An ideal paper should report the ndings of a study
clearly and concisely. It should address a well thought out
and dened hypothesis, with appropriately selected design
and statistical methods. Importantly, the research must be
topical and timely and in an area that holds promise to
move the eld forward for advancement of patient care.
Such a paper should report an innovative idea so that when
Ive nished reading it, I go WOW!! I then cant wait for
it to be published so I can discuss the paper with colleagues.
This sharing of new ideas is, after all, foundational to
advancement in science, and to translation of discoveries
into new and improved treatments for patient care.
3