Journal Reviewers' Workshop from 2025 Annual Meeting - Recording-Journal Reviewers' Workshop from 2025 Annual Meeting

Video Transcription

Video Summary

At the AJSM session, Brett Owens, the new editor-in-chief, welcomed attendees and introduced two key speakers: Dr. Scott Rodeo on reviewing translational basic science manuscripts and a discussion on reviewing manuscripts from international authors. Dr. Rodeo emphasized the importance of clinical relevance in basic science reviews, urging reviewers to consider how animal models simulate clinical conditions, the complexity of modern molecular techniques, and the necessity of collaboration with basic science colleagues for complex methodologies. He highlighted challenges such as heterogeneity in orthobiologics research and advocated for multiple outcome measures including structural, compositional, biomechanical, and functional assessments in animal studies. The importance of bioinformatics and advanced statistics was also stressed.<br /><br />The second speaker addressed reviewing foreign manuscripts, noting half of recent AJSM articles originate internationally. Benefits include unique populations and advanced registries, but challenges involve language barriers, ethical considerations, cultural differences, and inherent reviewer biases. Reviewers were advised to focus on scientific rigor over language proficiency and to be vigilant about ethical standards and potential biases. Both speakers underscored collaboration and open-mindedness in reviewing to improve research quality and maintain the journal’s leadership in sports medicine. Attendees were encouraged to update their profiles in the new manuscript system to aid in precise reviewer assignment. The session concluded with Q&A addressing authorship criteria, manuscript language, and the importance of detailed methodology descriptions like rehabilitation protocols.

Keywords

AJSM session

Brett Owens

Dr. Scott Rodeo

translational basic science

clinical relevance

orthobiologics research

international manuscript review

reviewer biases