Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice.

Peer review is primarily thought of as the process used to determine whether manuscripts are published in medical or other academic journals. While a publication may be one outcome of peer review, this article shares a model of 4 Ps to remind faculty of some important additional applications of peer review. The 4 Ps are publication, presentation, promotion, and practice. The medical literature offers few reasons why faculty should get involved in peer review. In this article, we define peer review, illustrate the role of peer review in four important processes, describe how the volume of material to review has changed over time, and share how participation in these processes promotes career advancement. Understanding the peer review process and its benefits can encourage professionals to participate in peer review in any of the four Ps as they recognize the benefits to their discipline and their career.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance amidosulfuron.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Finland, and co-rapporteur Member State, Croatia, for the pesticide active substance amidosulfuron and the assessment of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of amidosulfuron as a post-emergence herbicide on winter cereals, spring cereals, flax and grass/pasture (all field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Enhanced head and neck radiotherapy target definition through multidisciplinary delineation and peer review: A prospective single-center study.

This study evaluates the benefit of weekly delineation and peer review by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of radiation oncologists (ROs), radiologists (RXs), and nuclear medicine (NM) physicians in defining primary and lymph node tumor volumes (GTVp and GTVn) for head and neck cancer (HNC) radiotherapy. This study includes 30 consecutive HNC patients referred for definitive curative (chemo)-radiotherapy. Imaging data including head and neck MRI, [18F]-FDG-PET and CT scan were evaluated by the MDT. The RO identified the 'undeniable' tumor as GTVp_core and determined GTVp_max, representing the maximum tumoral volume. The MDT delineation (MDT-D) by RX and NM physicians outlined their respective primary GTVs (GTVp_RX and GTVp_NM). During the MDT meeting (MDT-M), these contours were discussed to reach a consensus on the final primary GTV (GTVp_final). In the comparative analysis of various GTVp delineations, we performed descriptive statistics and assessed two MDT-M factors: 1) the added value of MDT-M, which includes the section of GTVp_final outside GTVp_core but within GTVp_RX or GTVp_NM, and 2) the part of GTVp_final that deviates from GTVp_max, representing the area missed by the RO. For GTVn, discussions evaluated lymph node extent and malignancy, documenting findings and the frequency of disagreements. The average GTVp core and max volumes were 19.5 cc (range: 0.4-90.1) and 22.1 cc (range: 0.8-106.2), respectively. Compared to GTVp_core, MDT-D to GTVp_final added an average of 3.3 cc (range: 0-25.6) and spared an average of 1.3 cc (0-15.6). Compared to GTVp_max, MDT-D and -M added an average of 2.7 cc (range: 0-20.3) and removed 2.3 cc (0-21.3). The most frequent GTVn discussions included morphologically suspicious nodes not fixing on [18F]-FDG-PET and small [18F]-FDG-PET negative retropharyngeal lymph nodes. Multidisciplinary review of target contours in HNC is essential for accurate treatment planning, ensuring precise tumor and lymph node delineation, potentially improving local control and reducing toxicity.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus velezensis RTI301.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State The Netherlands for the pesticide active substance Bacillus velezensis strain RTI301 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of B. velezensis strain RTI301 as a fungicide for the control of soil-borne diseases in greenhouses (permanent) and walk-in tunnels (non-permanent) and field crops; by drip and drench irrigation on lettuce, cucurbit and solanaceous vegetables; field application by treating tubers whilst laying in furrow on potato; seed treatment application on maize, sunflower, sugar beet and winter oilseed rape. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported when identified.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State the Netherlands for the pesticide active substance Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of B. subtilis strain RTI477 as a fungicide for the control of soil-borne diseases in greenhouses (permanent) and walk-in tunnels and field crops; by drip and drench irrigation on lettuce, cucurbit and solanaceous vegetables; field application by treating tubers whilst laying in furrow on potato; seed treatment application on maize, sunflower, sugar beet and winter oilseed rape. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported when identified.

Duplicated phrases in peer review draw scrutiny.

Hundreds of papers bear signs of reviewers using templates for personal gain.

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

A Primer: Peer Review Process for Advances in Physiology Education.

The dissemination of discipline-focused educational scholarship advances theory and stimulates pedagogical application. The aim of Advances in Physiology Education is to publish manuscripts that advance knowledge and inform educators in the field. This primer is tailored for individuals new to manuscript reviewing, early in their careers, or experienced in reviewing research but not educational manuscripts. Peer reviewing for basic and applied science is akin to evaluating research questions and rigor in teaching and learning studies, with differences in approach and analysis similar to those between biophysics and molecular physiology or cell and integrated physiology. Our purpose is to provide an overview of the review process and expectations. The submission and peer review process involves several steps: authors submit a manuscript, the Editor assigns an Associate Editor, who then assigns peer Reviewers. Reviewers are contacted via email and can accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers evaluate the work's strengths and weaknesses, then independently submit comments and recommendations to the Associate Editor. After review, the Associate Editor collects and weighs Reviewers' comments, sometimes garners additional reviews and input, to make a recommendation to the Editor. The Editor reviews the process, comments, and recommendations to render a final decision. Both authors and Reviewers receive an email with the decision. The editorial staff assist with communication and help track the overall process. Peer review is integral to scientific publishing, ensuring quality and rigor, and reviewing is both a privilege and a responsibility of all in the scientific community.

Utilization of the Transparent Peer Review Policy to Train Graduate Pharmacy Students on Scientific Critique.

OBJECTIVE: Recognizing the importance of training graduate students in scientific critique and peer review, we introduced an innovative instructional strategy using the transparent peer review policy (TPRP). This study aimed to explore students' feedback and reflection on how published peer review reports influenced their scientific critique skills and thought process. METHODS: We used TPRP-adopting journals' publicly available peer review reports for Master of Science in Pharmacy students, who analyzed real cases, including author submissions, reviewer comments, author rebuttals, editorial decisions, and final publications. A reflection assignment required students to share their insights on the TPRP-adopting journals' review processes and how these influenced their scientific reviewing skills. Qualitative content analysis of the submitted reflections was conducted by two instructors not involved in developing or delivering this aspect of the course. RESULTS: Eleven students submitted reflections on their learning experiences through this public-facing peer review process. The analysis revealed that TPRP increased the students' awareness of the peer review process and fundamental principles of scientific critique. Five key themes emerged: understanding research content, inspiring ideas, fostering objectivity, enriching peer review comprehension, and evaluating transparent peer review pros and cons. Students showed a positive attitude toward this pedagogical approach for acquiring the targeted skills. CONCLUSION: We utilized peer review reports from TPRP-supporting journals as an educational tool, providing training on the fundamentals of peer review and scientific critique. This study suggests recommending TPRP-supported journal reports as a valuable educational tool for teaching scientific critique and peer review skills among graduate students.

Peer review for handoff education in a transition to residency course: A prospective cohort study.

Background and Aims: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandate training in handoff delivery for students and residents. Communication errors, including errors during handoffs of patient care, account for over 2/3 of sentinel events. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of peer-assisted learning (PAL) in handoff education within a longitudinal framework. Methods: This study involved the analysis of fourth-year medical students (n = 67) enrolled in a transition to residency program designed to reinforce skills essential for success in internal medicine residencies. We modified the I-PASS handoff rubric for a single-encounter evaluation. Before attending the transitions of care workshop, students submitted one written handoff report. During high-fidelity simulation sessions, peers evaluated the written document as well as verbal handoffs, while faculty evaluated a recorded verbal version. The primary outcome measured was improvement in handoff quality and accuracy over time and secondary outcomes compared peer- and self-evaluations to faculty assessments. Results: Overall, students demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in handoff quality and accuracy across all scoring criteria after completing the peer evaluation process. Peer evaluations did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in scores for quality or accuracy questions as compared to faculty. Conclusion: Peer evaluators effectively assessed handoff reports using the modified I-PASS checklist yielding outcomes similar to faculty while providing feedback. These findings provide exciting evidence that should prompt training programs to consider incorporating standardized peer review into handoff education for medical students and, potentially, residents. The detailed evaluation of individual handoff events fosters feedback skills essential for ongoing professional growth and clinical excellence.