Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development

被引:0
作者
Janke, Kristin K. [1 ]
Bzowyckyj, Andrew S. [2 ]
Traynor, Andrew P. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Coll Pharm, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] Univ Missouri, Kansas City Sch Pharm, Kansas City, MO 64110 USA
[3] Concordia Univ, Wisconsin Sch Pharm, Mequon, WI USA
关键词
peer review; manuscript; quality; faculty development; training programs; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; MEDICAL-EDUCATION; IMPROVE; PUBLICATION; EXPERIENCE; FRAMEWORK; AUTHORS; GUIDE; WRITE;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Objectives. To identify peer reviewer and peer review characteristics that enhance manuscript quality and editorial decisions, and to identify valuable elements of peer reviewer training programs. Methods. A three-school, 15-year review of pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration faculty's publications was conducted to identify high-publication volume journals for inclusion. Editors-in-chief identified all editors managing manuscripts for participation. A three-round modified Delphi process was used. Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Results. Nineteen editors representing eight pharmacy journals participated. Three characteristics of reviews were rated required or helpful in enhancing manuscript quality by all respondents: includes a critical analysis of the manuscript (88% required, 12% helpful), includes feedback that contains both strengths and areas of improvement (53% required, 47% helpful), and speaks to the manuscript's utility in the literature (41% required, 59% helpful). Hands-on experience with review activities (88%) and exposure to good and bad reviews (88%) were identified as very valuable to peer reviewer development. Conclusion. Reviewers, individuals involved in faculty development, and journals should work to assist new reviewers in defining focused areas of expertise, building knowledge in these areas, and developing critical analysis skills.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review? [J].
Allen, Thomas Wesley .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, 2013, 113 (12) :916-920
[2]  
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, 2009 10 PROF PHARM F
[3]  
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, 2014 15 PROF PHARM F
[4]  
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, 2013 14 PROF PHARM S
[5]   Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance [J].
Baxt, WG ;
Waeckerle, JF ;
Berlin, JA ;
Callaham, ML .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1998, 32 (03) :310-317
[6]   How to review a paper [J].
Benos, DJ ;
Kirk, KL ;
Hall, JE .
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2003, 27 (02) :47-52
[7]   The New Reviewer Assistance Program: A Multipronged Approach! [J].
Berquist, Thomas H. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 201 (01) :1-1
[8]   AJR Reviewers: We Need to Continue to Improve Our Education and Monitoring Methods! [J].
Berquist, Thomas H. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 200 (06) :1179-1180
[9]   What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? [J].
Black, N ;
van Rooyen, S ;
Godlee, F ;
Smith, R ;
Evans, S .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03) :231-233
[10]   Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports [J].
Bordage, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2001, 76 (09) :889-896