Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review

Abstract

Peer reviewers are considered gatekeepers in academic writing who play a pivotal and essential role during the publication process. Excellent manuscripts invariably need excellent reviewers. Producing peer reviewers with such caliber is time-consuming albeit necessary for the progress and continuity of academia. Despite the popular belief that an experienced author invariably makes a good reviewer, the reality is farfetched. This suggests the need for peer reviewer training, which should be effective, logistically affordable, and demonstrate long-lasting positive impacts. Open review, co-review, and several reviewer training programs are already in place for this purpose with varying efficiencies. This narrative review discusses the current modalities available to a junior reviewer to improve his/her review skills and proposes a reviewer residency concept that could be adopted as a part of peer reviewer training.

Critical appraisal, reviewing and synthetizing the injury prevention and control literature: time to revisit peer-reviewing and systematic reviews?

“…Second, good reviewing is difficult: selecting potential reviewers based on their publication list does not provide any information on their training and experience in critical appraisal, and on whether researchers feel comfortable in reviewing or not. 6 What tracks could be explored to deal with these issues? First, it has been suggested that the review process could be made easier by using previous reviews when reviewing a new paper; for instance, some journals accept protocol manuscripts after a simplified review process if the protocol has already been reviewed within a funding call process.…”

Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer

“…Moreover, one common misconception is that experienced authors make great reviews, which may not always be the case. All potential reviewers, whether novice or experienced, should learn the nuances of the peer‐review process through classes or review articles [6]. This article will comprehensively detail how to be a good reviewer and perform a useful peer review.…”

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

“…Despite the existence of peer review for the sciences since the 18th century, there is no standard program, structure, or onboarding process that has been consistently implemented or reliably validated to develop a trained reviewer pool. [2] Now more than ever, integrity and authenticity in scienti c publication is critical. Rapid publication models, pre-print servers, and expedited review have been critical for informing the public of major advances and health concerns in crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.…”