Search

Recognizing that very few potential reviewers and authors receive formal training on peer review, we provide guidance on peer reviewing manuscripts and on being responsive to reviewer comments. Peer review provides benefits to all parties involved. Serving as a peer reviewer gives perspective on the editorial process, fosters relationships with journal editors, gives insights into novel research, and provides a means of demonstrating topical expertise. When responding to peer reviewers, authors have the opportunity to strengthen the manuscript, sharpen the message, and address areas of potential misunderstanding. First, we provide guidance on how to peer review a manuscript. Reviewers should consider the importance of the manuscript, its rigor, and clarity of presentation. Reviewer comments should be as specific as possible. They should also be constructive and respectful in tone. Reviews typically include a list of major comments focused on methodology and interpretation and may also include a list of minor comments that pinpoint specific areas of clarification. Opinions expressed as comments to the editor are confidential. Second, we provide guidance on being responsive to reviewer comments. Authors are encouraged to approach reviewer comments as a collaboration and to view this exercise as an opportunity to strengthen their work. Response comments should be presented respectfully and systematically. The author's goal is to signal that they have engaged directly and thoughtfully with each comment. In general, when an author has questions regarding reviewer comments or how to respond, they are invited to contact the editor to review., (Copyright © 2023 Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Psychiatric disorders are a common cause of disability and represent an important risk factor for upper-extremity trauma. The review provides an overview of psychiatric illnesses as both contributors and sequelae of 4 major injury patterns: self-inflicted wrist lacerations, self-amputation, upper-extremity fractures, and burns. The authors develop a multidisciplinary model for upper-extremity surgeons to care for patients with psychiatric disorders, with an overview of capacity assessment, optimal psychiatric comanagement, and collaboration with allied health professionals., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Preclinical evidence suggests that the actions of ovarian steroid hormones and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) are highly convergent on brain function. Studies in humanized mice document an interaction between estrus cycle-related changes in estradiol secretion and BDNF Val 66 Met genotype on measures of hippocampal function and anxiety-like behavior. We believe our multimodal imaging data provide the first demonstration in women that the effects of the BDNF Val/Met polymorphism on hippocampal function are selectively modulated by estradiol. In a 6-month pharmacological hormone manipulation protocol, healthy, regularly menstruating, asymptomatic women completed positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans while performing the n-back working memory task during three hormone conditions: ovarian suppression induced by the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, leuprolide acetate; leuprolide plus estradiol; and leuprolide plus progesterone. For each of the three hormone conditions, a discovery data set was obtained with oxygen-15 water regional cerebral blood flow PET in 39 healthy women genotyped for BDNF Val 66 Met, and a confirmatory data set was obtained with fMRI in 27 women. Our results, in close agreement across the two imaging platforms, demonstrate an ovarian hormone-by-BDNF interaction on working memory-related hippocampal function (PET: F 2,37 =9.11, P=0.00026 uncorrected, P=0.05, familywise error corrected with small volume correction; fMRI: F 2,25 =5.43, P=0.01, uncorrected) that reflects differential hippocampal recruitment in Met carriers but only in the presence of estradiol. These findings have clinical relevance for understanding the neurobiological basis of individual differences in the cognitive and behavioral effects of ovarian steroids in women, and may provide a neurogenetic framework for understanding neuropsychiatric disorders related to reproductive hormones as well as illnesses with sex differences in disease expression and course.