Finding our voice—Scholarship in peer review

Ross, Jennie; Martin, A.; Han, Simeng

doi:10.1111/tct.13551

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[6][7][8] Despite its importance, the process of learning how to review a manuscript is largely informal and is not required in medical training. [9] Journals often call upon reviewers based on their content expertise; however, there are limited resources to train reviewers in critical appraisal, effective communication, and journalology. Further, one study suggested 20% of potential reviewers completed up to 94% of reviews, suggesting a shortage of engaged reviewers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, there is a need for programs to prepare early career physicians and scientists to participate in peer review. [9,14] A scalable, sustainable, effective program to teach physicians and scientists-in-training to conduct quality review would address these important gaps. In a prior randomized study, we developed an unstructured peer review training program and evaluated the impact of mentoring on peer review quality and knowledge of research methodology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A structured mentored review program improves the quality of peer review: a pre-post intervention study

Lyons-Warren

Aamodt

Pieper

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improves the quality of peer review as measured by quantitative assessment of peer review of a standardized manuscript. Methods: This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in two mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. The primary outcome measured was total score on the modified Review Quality Index (RQI). Secondary outcomes included participant-reported comfort with and understanding of the review process as well RQI subscores. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon test. The a priori hypothesis was that mentored review would improve peer review quality. Results: 42 mentees completed both pre- and post-program reviews of a standardized manuscript. For these participants, post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.25-35.75)) was significantly higher than pre-program total scores (26.59 (19.67-29.46)). 53 mentees completed both pre- and post-program surveys which showed improved participant perceptions of the review (median (IQR) scores pre = 4 (3-4) , post =5 (4-5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)). In addition, confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) scores pre = 2 (2-3), post = 4 (4-4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2-4) , post = 4 (4-5)) manuscripts significantly increased following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted above. Conclusions: A six-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review quality as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant understanding of publication science.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%