A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training

被引:3
作者
Lyons-Warren, Ariel Maia [1 ]
Aamodt, Whitley W. [2 ]
Pieper, Kathleen M. [3 ]
Strowd, Roy E. [4 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Clin Care Ctr, Dept Pediat, Sect Neurol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Neurol, Philadelphia, PA USA
[3] Amer Acad Neurol, Minneapolis, MN USA
[4] Wake Forest Univ, Dept Neurol & Internal Med, Sch Med, Winston Salem, NC USA
关键词
Peer review; Research; Surveys and Questionnaires; Mentorship; Training; Journalology;
D O I
10.1186/s41073-024-00143-x
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
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 improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments. Methods This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in 2 mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. Mentors and mentees completed pre-program demographic and review experience questionnaires. Outcome measures included (1) total and sub-scores on the modified Review Quality Index (mRQI) applied to the same pre-selected research manuscript reviewed by mentees both pre and post intervention, (2) mentee self-perceived comfort with and understanding of the review process using a custom questionnaire, and (3) mentor satisfaction surveys. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.3-35.8)) was higher than pre-program total score (26.6 (19.7-29.7)) for the 42 mentees who completed both pre- and post-program reviews. Mentees reported improved perception of review (median (IQR) pre = 4 (3-4), post = 5 (4-5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) as well as self-perceived confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) pre = 2 (2-3), post = 4 (4-4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) manuscripts following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted. Mentors reported high scores for enjoyment (median (range) 5/5 (3-5)) and interest in repeat participation (5/5 (2-5)). Conclusions A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Peer-review in practice: eight years of Aropa
    Purchase, Helen
    Hamer, John
    ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018, 43 (07) : 1146 - 1165
  • [32] Health Psychology's New (Old) Peer-Review Policy
    Freedland, Kenneth E.
    HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 36 (03) : 189 - 191
  • [33] Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review
    Levis, Alexander W.
    Leentjens, Albert F. G.
    Levenson, James L.
    Lumley, Mark A.
    Thombs, Brett D.
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH, 2015, 79 (06) : 561 - 565
  • [34] Peer-Review and Rejection Causes in Submitting Original Medical Manuscripts
    Mendiola Pastrana, Indira Rocio
    Vargas Hernandez, Adriana
    Perez Manjarrez, Francia Estefania
    Ortiz Lopez, Eduardo
    Fernanda Romero-Henriquez, Luisa
    Lopez-Ortiz, Geovani
    JOURNAL OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2020, 40 (03) : 182 - 186
  • [35] Fallout and miss in journal peer review
    Egghe, L.
    Bornmann, Lutz
    JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 2013, 69 (03) : 411 - 416
  • [36] Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review
    Resnik, David B.
    Elmore, Susan A.
    TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY, 2018, 46 (02) : 112 - 114
  • [37] Review of an immunohistochemistry educational peer review program
    Titford, M
    JOURNAL OF HISTOTECHNOLOGY, 2002, 25 (04) : 259 - 261
  • [38] A reconsideration of the faculty peer-review process for promotion and tenure
    Ponte, Charles D.
    CURRENTS IN PHARMACY TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2013, 5 (03) : 233 - 235
  • [39] Determinants of peer review engagement and quality in scientific journals: insights for academic research and the sustainability of the peer-review system
    Horta, Hugo
    Santos, Joao M.
    STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2024, 49 (09) : 1553 - 1568
  • [40] Development of a peer-review framework for cancer multidisciplinary meetings
    Johnson, Claire E.
    Slavova-Azmanova, Neli
    Saunders, Christobel
    INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2017, 47 (05) : 529 - 535