1 of 18

Workshop mentor

kick-off meeting

[Spring / Summer / Fall / Winter] Semester [YYYY]

[your email address]

2 of 18

Our idea

  • To create a structured program to train ECRs in [biomedical sciences] in peer review practice
    • Why this group?

2

Peerspectives

3 of 18

Not “just” peer review skills!

  • We see peer-review as a vehicle:
    • to take a critical look at the scientific publishing landscape
    • to hone critical reading / feedback skills
    • to discuss quality control in research they read and cite & that informs policies
    • to strengthen methods competencies (in real applications)
    • …

3

Peerspectives

4 of 18

Peerspectives: Overarching training course objectives

  • Explain the roles of scientific journals, editors, peer reviewers and authors as parts of the scientific process in biomedical fields
  • Promote clear communication and efficiency in review process
  • Stimulate critical thinking and formulation of constructive, scientific critique
  • Encourage transparency and familiarity with reporting guidelines
  • Introduce ethical (e.g. COPE) and methodological guidelines

4

Peerspectives

5 of 18

Peerspectives: Overarching training course objectives, cont’d

  • Introduce and explore open-access, open science, and open review concepts, as well as new / non-traditional review and publication systems / structures
  • Develop an understanding of what reviewers and editors are looking for in scientific writing and thereby also improve the quality of participants’ own future submissions
  • Explore real-world examples of study design and analysis strategies and identify their pros and cons in applications

5

Peerspectives

6 of 18

Method

  • Content based on:
    • Scientific publications, commentaries, published guides/training materials about peer review
    • Personal experience, discussions with many colleagues and experts
  • Hands-on & interactive, with mentorship component
  • Central aspect: Student contributions count, should be acknowledged & deserve credit

6

Peerspectives

7 of 18

Course Structure and Overview

7

III. Workshops

Four mandatory, hands-on workshops led by one workshop mentor; collaborative peer review report preparation

  • Wrap up session

II. Lectures

Four mandatory, interactive lectures held over Zoom with take-home assignments

​

​

​

​

IV. Post-Course Assignment

Independently completed peer-review assignment mirroring real-world conditions

�

​

​

I. Pre-Course Assignment

Independently completed peer-review assignment mirroring real-world conditions

�

* I. & IV. : Also were part of scientific evaluation study

Peerspectives

8 of 18

Lecture topics

8

8

  • Course overview & structure
  • The role of scientific journals, editors, and authors
  • Peer review: history & practice
  • Role of peer review(ers)
  • Peer review conduct
  • Ethical guidelines for review (COPE)
  • Writing a useful peer review: step-by-step & tips for constructive feedback
  • Generative AI in peer review
  • Sex, gender, & diversity: considerations
  • Peer review: Live walk-through
  • Credit for research contributions
  • Measures of scientific productivity
  • Predatory journals & practices
  • Serving as a peer reviewer: Procedure, expectations & manuscript submission systems
  • Final workshop preparations, incl. workshop mentor introductions, PaperHive intro & scheduling

1

2

3

4

Peerspectives

9 of 18

The Workshops

Peerspectives

10 of 18

Workshop Groups

10

Workshop 1:

[n] [Journal Partner] papers

​

Workshop 2:

[n] [Journal Partner] papers

​

Workshop 3:

[n] [Journal Partner] papers

​

Workshop 4:

[n] [Journal Partner] papers

​

Workshop Dates (all times [Timezone])

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Group A

[Name of Workshop Mentor]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

Group B

[Name of Workshop Mentor]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

Group C

[Name of Workshop Mentor]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

Group D

[Name of Workshop Mentor]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

Group E

[Name of Workshop Mentor]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

Group F

[Name of Workshop Mentor]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

[MONTH DD, YYYY];

[HH:MM - HH:MM]

Peerspectives

11 of 18

The Workshops

  • 5-6 students will participate in your workshop group
  • Each week a “lead” student is responsible for compiling the main body of the review report & check in on the other group members to contribute their part (one week may be shared). All are accountable!
    • The idea is to have a decent draft ready before the workshop meeting
  • You should prepare by reading the manuscript beforehand and checking in on the student draft so you are prepared to coach them through the workshop
  • Please alert [your email address] if a student doesn’t contribute

11

Peerspectives

12 of 18

Workshops: Format

12

  • 4x à 3 hours (with breaks)
  • Small groups: 1 workshop mentor + 5-6 trainees
  • For each workshop:
    • 1 “live” BMJ manuscript assigned to the group
    • Materials uploaded in secured channel in PaperHive
      • More details on next slide
    • One trainee takes the lead for each manuscript
    • All trainees draft preliminary peer review report
    • Small group discusses article & finalize review report
    • Review report sent to journal (open review, all named)
    • Workshop mentor circulates final journal decision & other review reports for group discussion

Peerspectives

13 of 18

Sample Timeline

5 Days

May 23rd (Friday)

We Request the Manuscripts from the partner journal

2 day Flexible Window

You receive the Manuscript from BMJ (and send them to us!)

May 28th

​

7 days

May 30th

We Send the Manuscripts to the Students for Review

4 Days

June 6

Workshop #1

Review Submitted!

~ June 10

Workshop Mentors Send Finished Peer Review Back to BMJ

(Wednesday)

(Friday)

(Friday)

(Tuesday)

Peerspectives

14 of 18

Workshops: Timeline

  • About 7 days before each workshop, editor mentors will receive a manuscript assignment from the BMJ (marked for “Peerspectives”)
    • Please send each manuscript and any supplementary material / checklists to [your email address] as soon as you receive the assignment (.pdf or .docx)
  • Peerspectives coordination will upload the the documents to your group’s PaperHive channel and distribute them to your workshop group via email
    • You can participate in the discussion on PaperHive, but it is not required
  • Your group will use a shared Google Doc to compose the review report (sample review report template)
    • they should write from whom each comment comes + weight/importance
  • All links and additional details will be shared by email

14

Peerspectives

15 of 18

Use of Artificial Intelligence

  • Watch out for the use of AI tools
    • The use of AI must be declared and is only permitted to improve language
    • All workshop reviews must be entirely original work by the students and should not be AI generated
    • Students have agreed that they must abide by the following BMJ statement on AI use:

“If reviewers use AI technology to improve word processing and language, they should declare this when submitting their reports. However, reviewers should preserve the confidentiality of the peer review process by not putting unpublished manuscripts that they are reviewing for BMJ Journals (or information about them) into publicly available AI tools where the security of the confidential information cannot be guaranteed.”

  • If you suspect that AI has been used to generate a review report, please contact [your email address]

​

​

15

Peerspectives

16 of 18

Wrap up session

  • “Listening-in” on a [journal partner] Editorial meeting
  • Followed by group discussion / reflection
  • Course wrap-up / feedback round

Peerspectives

17 of 18

Thank you!

Peerspectives coordination will contact editor mentors regarding payment in the coming weeks.

​

Questions? Please reach out to [your email address] at any time!

Peerspectives

18 of 18

Credits

Special thanks to all the people who made and released these awesome resources for free:

  • Presentation template by SlidesCarnival
  • Illustrations by Sergei Tikhonov
  • Photographs by Unsplash

18

Peerspectives