To provide an opportunity for trainees at the Center for Lung Biology to author an historical perspective in influential discoveries that led to the modern understanding of pulmonary and critical care medicine, and to gain experience in the peer review and editorial processes.

Editorial Board

  • Rob Barrington, Ph.D.
  • Donna Cioffi, Ph.D.
  • Sarah Sayner, Ph.D.

"Did You Know" Author Instructions

Article Format

All "Did You Know" articles are to begin with the question, "Did you know...?"  The article should address an important and interesting topic in lung biology.

The topic is to be presented from an historical point of view.

Basic questions the article can ask and then answer include WHY, HOW, WHERE, or WHEN an important event in lung biology happened or WHO was involved in the historical event.

End the manuscript with a summary sentence that answers the initial question.

Helpful hint: If you know the topic of your prospectus or dissertation thesis, you can use this article as a platform to build on for your background section, or the article can be incorporated into lung physiology class assignments.

Technical Criteria

  • Consider your target audience when writing the article.
    • The text is to be written at a level appropriate for graduates students, post docs, and fellows.
  • The manuscript length should be kept to 1 double spaced page including the figure insert (see below). Use 12 point Arial or Helvetica font.
  • Include a figure, diagram, or picture to emphasize the theme of the article.
    • The figure should add instructive value to the text. (The reader should learn something from the figure.)
    • Include a figure legend for your figure. (Figure legend font is usually smaller, 8 or 9 point, than text font.)
  • Limit the number of references to 5-10 articles.

Previous articles can be found in the archives section of the CLB web page. Refer to these articles for examples.


Judy Creighton, 9/09

"Did You Know" Reviewer Instructions

Submitting Your Response

Please complete and forward your review to the current "Did You Know" Faculty Editor by the review deadline. A schedule is available on the CLB web site; click here.

Your "Reviewer Response" should be submitted to your Faculty Editor by e-mail as Word document files (.doc). Separate your response into 2 files:  1) a file containing the "Confidential Comments to the Review Editor " section, and 2) a file containing the "General Comments to the Author " sections. (These sections are explained below).

"General Comments to the Author" responses will be compiled by the Faculty Editor and e-mailed back to all reviewers.

General Guidelines

All responses and comments should be explained in sentence form. Do not cut and paste from the article except to substantiate a point.


Limit your comments to items you think will make the article a better contribution to the scientific literature without placing any expectations or judgments on the author. When constructing your responses to the author, do not write statements like, "This article is one of the worst works I've ever read," or "This is the best 'Did You Know' that anyone has written." Write the review as if you were speaking to the author directly.

The format for the Reviewer Response follows the 4 sections indicated in boldface type below. Responses are generally written in paragraph form with each section having one or more paragraphs. In sections containing multiple paragraphs, the paragraphs may be numbered to reflect that each addresses a specific point or comment. Use the guidelines below to formulate your comments for each section, but do not copy the guidelines. They are not meant to be a form or "fill in the answer sheet". Their purpose is to provide the reviewer with the elements that are normally included in a thorough well-written review.

Confidential Comments to Review Editor:

  • Include in this section comments on whether or not you think the article is ready for publication and why you feel this way.
  • In a succinct manner, suggest changes that you believe are necessary to make the article ready for publication.

General Comments to the Author:

  • Begin your review by giving an article summary in 1 sentence. 
    • Your comment should reflect that you have read the article and can cite the major point back to the author. Do not cut and paste-answer in your own words.
  • Comment on the significance of the article. Answer this question in your comments.
    • Did this manuscript address an important and interesting topic in lung biology?

Minor Comments: (minor revision concerns)

Address the following questions. Do not give Yes/No answers. Explain your responses.

  • Is the grammar correct?
  • Are there any spelling errors?
  • Are there 5-10 references?
  • Are the references cited correctly?
  • Are the references appropriate?

Major Comments: (major revision concerns)

In this section, discuss major problems that require significant effort to address and revise. Be specific. In particular, comment on the following questions listed below. Your answers need not be limited to these topics, but your comments in this section should answer all of these questions. No Yes/No answers. Explain your responses. Give examples from the article to support your answers if appropriate.

  • Was the topic presented from an historical point of view?
  • Does the article follow a logical progression?
  • Does the author begin by asking the question, "Did you know..."?
  • Is this question related to lung biology?
  • Does the manuscript end with a summary sentence answer to the initial question?
  • Is the text written in a manner appropriate for graduates students, post docs, and fellows?
  • Is the manuscript length correct?
  • Was a figure included?
  • Did the figure add instructive value to the text?

Remember that your responses should be presented in the form of constructive criticism. Be professional. Don't be rude or condescending. Offer suggestions that will improve the quality of the article.

Judy Creighton, 9/09

Email Newsletters

Connect With Us