I sometimes get an article to review that is outside my area of expertise

1

• I sometimes get an article to review that is
  outside my area of expertise
• Why was I asked to review this paper when it is
  clearly not appropriate for this journal?
• I recently received a nasty review what do
  editors do with the highly negative review?
• I am likely to do further reviews for a journal
  when I hear about the fate of the paper what
  the other reviewers thought and whether it was
  accepted.

2
Getting the most out of your reviewers

• Linda Snell MD MHPE FRCPC FACP
• Centre for Medical Education Department of
  Medicine,
• McGill University, Montreal, Canada
• Veterinary Journal Editors Meeting
• Washington DC July 2007

3
Characteristics of journal reviewers reviews?

• A great reviewer / reviews
• timely
• Constructive
• Specific
• Concise
• Thorough
• Doesnt edit
• Objective
• Non nihilist

• A terrible reviewer / reviews
• yes gtgt no
• Dismissive
• Nasty
• Doesnt edit
• Nit picker
• Edits
• Uncommunicative
• No explanations
• Delay then reject

4
Learning objectives

• By the end of this presentation you will be able
  to
• Discuss the importance of reviewers in the peer
  review
• List methods of reviewer recruitment selection
• Overview strategies that can assist in producing
  an excellent review
• Outline how to recognize and reward reviewers
• And will have shared ideas for best practices

5
Why peer review?
Opportunity to learn Professional
responsibility
Improve quality of paper
Author
Reviewer

Journal
Advise editor Balanced Ethics
6
Why peer review?
Author
Reviewer
QUALITY
Journal
Peer review is at the core of science and
academic life. Bordage
7
Reviewer recruitment selection

• Match reviewer / expertise with topic or article
  type
• Characteristics of reviewer producing good
  review JAMA
• Younger
• Stats / epi training

• Expertise
• Complemented by judgment
• Experienced
• Interested
• Motivated
• Time to do it

8

• Do you have enough reviewers for your journal?
• Do you have enough high quality reviewers for
  your journal?

9
Reviewer recruitment selection
10
Reviewer recruitment selection

• Journal
• Manuscript citations / bibliographies
• Literature search
• Recently published authors
• Role of editorial board / sub-editors
• Network / personal contacts
• Scientific organizations / professional meetings
• Other
• Authors suggestions
• Shared assignment with juniors
• Ads in journal . .

11

• The reviewer serves as advisor to the editor,
  peer assessor to the experienced researcher, and
  teacher to the less experienced author.
• Caelleigh

12
Reviewers perspectives of process

• Time spent in review 2-3 h
• Process of review
• Helpful to ask a colleague stats, expertise,
  literature, validate
• Problems with reviews
• Reviewer expertise, experience, expectations,
  being balanced
• Manuscript flawed, poorly written
• Process inaccessible references, time
• Facilitators to the review process
• Covering letter with goals instructions good
  review form reviewer training feedback on
  reviews access to literature sample copy of
  journal

13
Guidance for reviewers

• Covering letter with the manuscript
• Statement of journals purpose
• Role of the reviewer
• Instructions for the review and forms
• Deadlines
• Reviewer etiquette
• Format
• Structured forms provide a framework
• Narrative provides valuable feedback
• Separate the review recommendation re
  publication

14
Reviewer training mentoring

• 15-20 have it 75-90 want it
• Part of graduate education
• Reading
• Consulting editors
• Consulting colleagues
• Workshops or seminars at scientific meetings

15
After the review

• Inform reviewer of fate of manuscript
• Share comments of other reviewers
• Feedback to reviewer
• Other perspectives
• Benchmarking
• Annual report to reviewer
• Number and quality of reviews Ann Int Med

16
Recognition and reward

• Thank-you's
• In journal
• Letter
• Recognition of quality
• Distinguished reviewers
• Use of associated organizations merit points
• Academic advancement

17

• The seasoned author anticipates peer review
  without particular relish but expects
  constructive criticism Approached thoroughly,
  peer review represents collegial mentoring and
  contributes to the integrity of the scientific
  endeavor.
• Pascoe, Vet.Surg. 2006

18
In summary

• Pick the right reviewers
• Give them the right guidance
• Recognize their contributions

19
References

• Bordage G, Caelleigh A (eds). Review criteria for
  research manuscripts. Acad Medicine.
  76(9)904-75, Sept 2001.
• Black N et al. What makes a good reviewer and a
  good review for a general medical journal? JAMA.
  280(3) 231-4, July 15 1998.
• Snell L, Spencer J. Reviewers perceptions of
  the peer review process. Med Education.
  3990-97, 2005
• Van Rooyen S et al. Effects of open peer review
  on quality of reviews. BMJ 31823-7, 2 Jan 1999.