Capacity Building in Peer-Review: a Student-led Journal Experience

Abstract

Introduction: Peer-review plays a pivotal role in optimizing the quality of research articles. However, new strategies need to be implemented in the peer-review system to enhance research rigor, accurate reporting, and data reliability, such as increasing diversity among the reviewers through the inclusion of undergraduate students as reviewers. We aim to report the peer-review policies, procedures, and practices of a medical student-led journal editorial board in 2020, specifically detailing the challenges and the role of the students in the peer-review process. Methods: Through validated online training courses and peer education methodology, the students built capacity regarding the relevance of peer-review, its models, structure, and the publication process. The peer-review process was blinded for authors and reviewers, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and the minimization of identification bias. Guidelines for authors and reviewers were developed to add standardization to the submission and review processes, based on journals’ recommendations and reporting guidelines. Results: From July to August of 2020, the student-led journal received 254 submitted manuscripts from all five Brazilian geographic regions, compared to the 72 submissions received in the previous edition. After review, 50 manuscripts were accepted with major or minor corrections. Discussion: Peer-review contributes to the construction of content, and is the foundation for evidence-based medicine. In addition, it improves ethical thinking, communication skills, and critical appraisal abilities, also desirable in the academic and professional spheres. The medical student peer-review process has numerous benefits and should be promoted and further studied as a potential strategy for building capacity in peer-review.

Same taxonomy but different implications: a call for further improvement in the lexicon and transparency among post-publication correction mechanisms

“…Despite the problems of the peer-reviewing system, it is still an asset for journals. Scientists consider it a presumed proxy of its credibility for full manuscripts publications, whilst not all true 18 . However, it might mitigate the uninformative notes of retractions or unbalanced ones, and not done by internal peer-reviewers.…”

“…Our reward system is roughly not sufficient and to correct it is ultimate. Also, to educate scientists in education and afterwards is matter 18 . Institutions also have a role valuing an integrity system to support scientists 30,31,32 .…”