Samy A Azer1, Subha Ramani, Ray Peterson. 1. Curriculum Development and Research Unit, Medical Education Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. azer2000@optusnet.com.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer reviewing for medical education journals is an art, a privilege, a responsibility and a service to the profession. Writing a review report requires skills and commitment and takes time. Novice reviewers may be interested in participating in this service, but they might lack sufficient knowledge of their role as peer reviewers and the skills needed to conduct a comprehensive and fair review. AIMS: The aims of this article are to help novice reviewers in their preparation of manuscript review reports and improve their confidence and skills in their role as reviewers. METHODS: We reviewed the literature in this area and applied lessons learned from our experience as peer reviewers. In addition, one of the authors has presented several training workshops for faculty reviewers. RESULTS: Incorporating all the methods described, we have developed a series of simple strategies that medical educators can utilise to perform high-quality reviews of manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Though the development of skills in reviewing medical education papers is the outcome of continuous practice and experience; the strategies described in this article will be of value to those starting their professional contribution as reviewers and enhance their skills in this area.
BACKGROUND: Peer reviewing for medical education journals is an art, a privilege, a responsibility and a service to the profession. Writing a review report requires skills and commitment and takes time. Novice reviewers may be interested in participating in this service, but they might lack sufficient knowledge of their role as peer reviewers and the skills needed to conduct a comprehensive and fair review. AIMS: The aims of this article are to help novice reviewers in their preparation of manuscript review reports and improve their confidence and skills in their role as reviewers. METHODS: We reviewed the literature in this area and applied lessons learned from our experience as peer reviewers. In addition, one of the authors has presented several training workshops for faculty reviewers. RESULTS: Incorporating all the methods described, we have developed a series of simple strategies that medical educators can utilise to perform high-quality reviews of manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Though the development of skills in reviewing medical education papers is the outcome of continuous practice and experience; the strategies described in this article will be of value to those starting their professional contribution as reviewers and enhance their skills in this area.
Authors: Jonathan S Ilgen; Anthony R Artino; Deborah Simpson; Lalena M Yarris; Katherine C Chretien; Gail M Sullivan Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2016-12
Authors: Armen Yuri Gasparyan; Marlen Yessirkepov; Alexander A Voronov; Alexey N Gerasimov; Elena I Kostyukova; George D Kitas Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Lalena M Yarris; Michael Gottlieb; Kevin Scott; Christopher Sampson; Emily Rose; Teresa M Chan; Jonathan Ilgen Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2017-04-19
Authors: Bridget C O'Brien; Anthony R Artino; Joseph A Costello; Erik Driessen; Lauren A Maggio Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.240