Tricks of the Trade: How to Review a Modelling Paper

Webinar Details

Register now

March 15, 2017 | 12:00 p.m. EDT

Learn or refresh your skills on reviewing modelling papers in this second Tricks of the Trade webcast hosted by eNeuro Editor-in-Chief Christophe Bernard. This is your chance to understand best practices that will help you become proficient at assessing the validity of scientific conclusions based on the data presented. 

Using a real paper submitted to eNeuro, Bernard will conduct a step-by-step walkthrough of this type of review process. You will hear an analysis of comments from the actual reviewers, and get advice on how to provide useful and fair critiques. Bernard will also answer your specific questions and concerns. 

To help you actively participate and compare how you would approach the review with the experts, you will receive the paper and instructions so you can complete your own review before the webcast.   

Whether you are a first-time reviewer or you are looking to improve your skills, this webcast will be relevant to you.  

Register now

This webcast is the second in SfN’s Tricks of the Trade webcast series. Make sure to watch the first webcast, Tricks of The Trade: How to Peer Review a Manuscript.

Read Editorial: eNeuro Offer a Unique Interactive Experience to Reviewer Training by eNeuro Editor-in-Chief Christophe Bernard to learn why this series was created.

Can’t attend live? Register to watch on-demand.



Christophe Bernard
Christophe Bernard, PhD
Christophe Bernard is the PhysioNet team leader in at the Institute of Neuroscience Systems at the French Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM). His research focuses on understanding how physiological and pathological behaviors emerge from the organization and reorganization of the underlying neuronal architecture, with an emphasis on epilepsy. He currently serves as the inaugural editor-in-chief of eNeuro, SfN’s open-access, online, scientific journal, which is committed to rigorous scientific practices, including publishing negative results and studies that fail to reproduce prior work, as well as transparent manuscript review processes.

Look at what people are saying...

Sparking Global Conversations Around Neuroscience