The Peer Review Process.

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback.

Clinical outcome measures in vision and eye care.

Traditionally, clinical outcome assessments have focused on the patient's perspective through patient-reported outcome assessments; however, given the complexity, integration, and interactions of various participants within the clinical ophthalmology setting, we propose that additional diverse clinical perspectives should be explored in order to appreciate fully the value of care provided to patients. In this review we introduce a framework by which clinical outcome assessments (COAs) can be organized. Our COA framework is composed of five outcome measurements that encompass the perspectives of each player in a patient's care: clinical data-reported outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, clinician-reported outcomes, observer-reported outcomes, and reviewer-reported outcomes. By establishing a standard for evaluating patient care, we hope to address gaps in expectations of patient care and encourage more thoughtful patient-clinician relationships.

Peer review of clinical and translational research manuscripts: Perspectives from statistical collaborators.

Research articles in the clinical and translational science literature commonly use quantitative data to inform evaluation of interventions, learn about the etiology of disease, or develop methods for diagnostic testing or risk prediction of future events. The peer review process must evaluate the methodology used therein, including use of quantitative statistical methods. In this manuscript, we provide guidance for peer reviewers tasked with assessing quantitative methodology, intended to complement guidelines and recommendations that exist for manuscript authors. We describe components of clinical and translational science research manuscripts that require assessment including study design and hypothesis evaluation, sampling and data acquisition, interventions (for studies that include an intervention), measurement of data, statistical analysis methods, presentation of the study results, and interpretation of the study results. For each component, we describe what reviewers should look for and assess; how reviewers should provide helpful comments for fixable errors or omissions; and how reviewers should communicate uncorrectable and irreparable errors. We then discuss the critical concepts of transparency and acceptance/revision guidelines when communicating with responsible journal editors.

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers"-myths and facts about peer review.

A frequent complaint of editors of scientific journals is that it has become increasingly difficult to find reviewers for evaluating submitted manuscripts. Such claims are, most commonly, based on anecdotal evidence. To gain more insight grounded on empirical evidence, editorial data of manuscripts submitted for publication to the Journal of Comparative Physiology A between 2014 and 2021 were analyzed. No evidence was found that more invitations were necessary over time to get manuscripts reviewed; that the reviewer's response time after invitation increased; that the number of reviewers who completed their reports, relative to the number of reviewers who had agreed to review a manuscript, decreased; and that the recommendation behavior of reviewers changed. The only significant trend observed was among reviewers who completed their reports later than agreed. The average number of days that these reviewers submitted their evaluations roughly doubled over the period analyzed. By contrast, neither the proportion of late vs. early reviews, nor the time for completing the reviews among the punctual reviewers, changed. Comparison with editorial data from other journals suggests that journals that serve a smaller community of readers and authors, and whose editors themselves contact potential reviewers, perform better in terms of reviewer recruitment and performance than journals that receive large numbers of submissions and use editorial assistants for sending invitations to potential reviewers.

Time to rethink academic publishing: the peer reviewer crisis.

There is concern that the time taken to publish academic papers in microbiological science has significantly increased in recent years. While the data do not specifically support this, evidence suggests that editors are having to invite more and more reviewers to identify those willing to perform peer review.

Training Pearl: Welcome to the CC360 Fellow's Corner.

The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation has grown to appreciate the needs of gastroenterology trainees with numerous initiatives designed to provide education, academic opportunities, and mentoring in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in recent years. The editors and staff at Crohn's and Colitis 360 (CC360) have launched 2 new initiatives, the Fellow's Corner and the CC360 Editorial Fellowship, to support trainees in gaining knowledge and skills regarding peer review and publication as well as offering guidance on training in IBD and an opportunity for publication in this peer-reviewed, open access, quarterly online journal. These opportunities are described in this manuscript.

Analytical method for detecting outlier evaluators.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic and medical studies often rely on evaluators to obtain measurements of exposures or outcomes for study participants, and valid estimates of associations depends on the quality of data. Even though statistical methods have been proposed to adjust for measurement errors, they often rely on unverifiable assumptions and could lead to biased estimates if those assumptions are violated. Therefore, methods for detecting potential 'outlier' evaluators are needed to improve data quality during data collection stage. METHODS: In this paper, we propose a two-stage algorithm to detect 'outlier' evaluators whose evaluation results tend to be higher or lower than their counterparts. In the first stage, evaluators' effects are obtained by fitting a regression model. In the second stage, hypothesis tests are performed to detect 'outlier' evaluators, where we consider both the power of each hypothesis test and the false discovery rate (FDR) among all tests. We conduct an extensive simulation study to evaluate the proposed method, and illustrate the method by detecting potential 'outlier' audiologists in the data collection stage for the Audiology Assessment Arm of the Conservation of Hearing Study, an epidemiologic study for examining risk factors of hearing loss in the Nurses' Health Study II. RESULTS: Our simulation study shows that our method not only can detect true 'outlier' evaluators, but also is less likely to falsely reject true 'normal' evaluators. CONCLUSIONS: Our two-stage 'outlier' detection algorithm is a flexible approach that can effectively detect 'outlier' evaluators, and thus data quality can be improved during data collection stage.

The Real Secret to Getting Published: Responding to Reviewers.

Authors submitting a paper often receive an opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper. Authors may find addressing reviewers' comments challenging. We posit authors should welcome expert suggestions for revisions that strengthen the paper and develop a persuasive response if they disagree with the reviewer. A thoughtful, detailed response allows authors to dialogue with reviewers. Our paper uses exemplars of responses to reviewers to illustrate the effectiveness of clear and compelling author responses. Addressing reviewers' comments ultimately results in a better paper-more likely to be accepted. Developing skills in resubmitting research and clinical scholarship reports is essential to the dissemination process.

The use of text-mining software to facilitate screening of literature on centredness in health care.

Research evidence supporting the implementation of centredness in health care is not easily accessible due to the sheer amount of literature available and the diversity in terminology and conceptualisations used. The use of text-mining functions to semi-automate the process of screening and collating citations for a review is a way of tackling the vast amount of research citations available today. There are several programmes that use text-mining functions to facilitate screening and data extraction for systematic reviews. However, the suitability of these programmes for reviews on broad topics of research, as well as the general uptake by researchers, is unclear. This commentary has a dual aim, which consists in outlining the challenges of screening literature in fields characterised by vague and overlapping conceptualisations, and to exemplify this by exploratory use of text-mining in the context of a scoping review on centredness in health care.

How to write a revised manuscript in clinical medicine.

Although there are several books or manuscripts regarding how to prepare scientific manuscripts, the literatures focusing on the preparation of the revised manuscript are sparse. The process of revisions may be different between experimental medicine and clinical medicine. In this review, we summarize the tips for the revised manuscript in clinical medicine. When the authors receive the invitation of revisions from the editors, the authors should try to resubmit the revised manuscript at the earliest convenience. In the preparation of the rebuttal letter, the authors must respect the reviewers' effort for their manuscript. It is important for the authors to make the reviewers feel that the authors take a best effort to verify the reviewer's request.

Peer reviewer survey for Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.

Editors of medical journals have important responsibilities and depend on peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of submitted manuscripts. However, invitations to undertake peer review are often declined, and in some cases the reviewer fails to provide a review in a reasonable timeframe. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings surveyed recent reviewers to determine their motivations for undertaking a review and possible benefits associated with reviewing. Sixty-seven reviewers (12.4%) out of 540 responded to the survey request. Reviewer characteristics included long-standing involvement in research (50 reviewers in research ≥11 years) and prior publication (50 reviewers ≥6 articles). Many reviewers thought that reviewing articles represented a responsibility and provided an opportunity for them to contribute to scientific efforts and medical publications and to learn new information. Survey respondents suggested that recognition by the journal was an adequate benefit. This survey, like others, indicates that editors will continue to depend on a core set of reviewers who consider this activity both an opportunity and a responsibility.

Peer review? No thanks!

The peer review process is an inalienable necessity in the modern scientific world. Published manuscripts are founded on feedback, a process in which reviewers evaluate the scientific values of the submitted paper and provide comments and criticisms. The aim of this process is to assist authors by improving their papers, to promote good science. The peer-review process can be represented as a hurdle race with the ultimate prize of innovative accurate scientific knowledge being published. In this process, we have on the one side the authors and originators of ideas and on the other editors and reviewers. In the process of publishing a scientific article, it is important to respect the time and efforts of both actors.

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

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 far-fetched. 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.

Improving feedback students receive on documentation during the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship.

BACKGROUND: Students need feedback on written documentation to optimize their long-term development of this important clinical skill. The culture in surgical specialties does not always prioritize feedback regarding this skill. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of 2 specific forms to improve the quantity and quality of feedback to students about their medical documentation. STUDY DESIGN: In a multiphase quality improvement project, medical students were surveyed after the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship regarding their experience of receiving feedback on written notes. The proportions of students who received feedback on notes and those rating the feedback as meaningful were measured before and after the implementation of a required, formative feedback card. In phase 2, students were randomized to use a simplified feedback card or the original detailed card, and outcomes were compared. This study was conducted at the Medical University of South Carolina, a tertiary care academic medical center. The participants included third-year medical students that completed their 6-week obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. RESULTS: Before the intervention, of 82 students, 70 (85%) and 55 (67%) received feedback on written notes in the inpatient and outpatient settings, respectively, which increased to 99.6% (254/255) and 98.5% (251/255) (P<.001) after the implementation of any feedback card. Moreover, the proportion of students who felt the feedback helped them improve their clinical documentation skills increased from 72% to 90% (P<.001) with the use of a feedback card. These improvements were noted in all clinical units within the clerkship. There was no difference (P=.3) in outcomes between the simplified and detailed cards. CONCLUSION: A formative card is a simple, cost-effective, low-resource intervention that can increase both the quantity and quality of written note feedback that students receive during their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. A less detailed card achieved comparable outcomes and increased faculty satisfaction.