Otolaryngology Resident Reviewer Development Program: Lessons Learned from Cohort 1

2019 ◽  
Vol 160 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecelia E. Schmalbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Educational Program ◽  
Administrative Support ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Independent Review

Objective To implement a quality improvement project addressing the knowledge gap in the otolaryngology resident and fellow scientific peer review process. Methods The creation of the Resident Reviewer Development Program, cohort 1 outcomes, and subsequent lessons learned from the inaugural class are outlined using the plan-do-study-act model. Interested otolaryngology residents were paired with seasoned reviewers and conducted a minimum of 3 mentored peer reviews followed by an independent review test if competency was determined. Results Twenty-five residents (postgraduate years [PGYs] 2-5) were actively enrolled in cohort 1. At 24 months, 18 (72%) graduated, 6 remained actively enrolled, and 1 did not successfully complete the program. The median number of practice reviews prior to testing was 3 (range, 3-6). The median independent review score was 83 (overall journal mean = 78). Cohort 1 graduates continued on to review 130 articles with a mean score of 85. Five (28%) graduates achieved Star Reviewer status. Discussion The inaugural cohort demonstrated that the PGY-3 and PGY-4 class is ideal for enrollment given that completion of the program could take up to 24 months. Three mentored reviews were identified as the ideal minimum requirement for education. The accelerated achievement of Star Reviewer status (28%) and mean postgraduation score of 85 demonstrate successful and sustainable outcome measures. Implications for Practice With appropriate mentorship and administrative support, scientific peer review can be formally incorporated into an educational program. Lessons learned during the educational program are sustained long term as demonstrated by review scores and Star Reviewer status.

How efficient are Early Career Scientists in peer-review activities?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
Jilda Caccavo ◽  
Nicolas Champollion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Closing The Gap

<p>In our collective endeavour towards global sustainability, there is now a broad appreciation that producing scientifically robust knowledge requires new forms of engagement between scientists, stakeholders and society. But what is the role of Early Career Scientists (ECS) in these processes that are closing the gap between science and policy? Because opportunities to interact with more experienced peers through science refereeing are scarce, the role of ECS in the peer-review process remains minor despite ECS possessing strong academic credentials. Such engagement in the peer-review process represents a valuable opportunity for ECS and the scientific community as a whole. This opportunity provides a robust platform for ECS to understand the overall review process and editorial activities related to high-credibility publications such as those conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). During May/November 2018, 174 ECS on behalf of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) reviewed the first and second-order drafts of the IPCC “Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere and in a Changing Climate (SROCC)”. Here, we present the methodology, results, and lessons learned from these group reviews. Altogether, data from participant surveys on their experience and their comments catalog illustrate ECS as competent reviewers, comparable to more experienced researchers. The diverse disciplines and geographic perspectives, fostered through APECS and its partners, are currently being mobilized in the First Order Draft of the Working Groups I and II of the Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC, and will continue during the second round of reviews of these reports in early 2020. Information gathered during these ongoing reviews will add to the findings obtained during the review of the SROCC.</p>

scholarly journals Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap

2016 ◽  
Vol 155 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecelia E. Schmalbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Knowledge Gap ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Area Of Interest

Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process—a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations.

scholarly journals pyOpenSci: Open and reproducible research, powered by Python

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Trizna ◽  
Leah Wasser ◽  
David Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Application Programming Interface ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reproducible Research

pyOpenSci (short for Python Open Science), funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, is building a diverse community that supports well documented, open source Python software that enables open reproducible science. pyOpenSci will work with the community to openly develop best practice guidelines and open standards for scientific Python software, which will be reinforced through a community-led peer review process and training. Packages that complete the peer review process become a part of the pyOpenSci ecosystem, where maintenance can be shared to ensure longevity and stability in code. pyOpenSci packages are also eligible for a “fast tracked” acceptance to JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software). In addition, we provide review for open science tools that would be of interest to TDWG members but are not within scope for JOSS, such as API (Application Programming Interface) wrappers. pyOpenSci is built on top of the successful model of rOpenSci, founded in 2011, which has fostered the development of several useful biodiversity informatics R packages. The pyOpenSci team looks to following the lessons learned by rOpenSci, to create a similarly successful community. We invite TDWG members developing open source software tools in Python to become part of the pyOpenSci community.

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document