Literature DB >> 28630514

Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.

Kristin K Janke1, Andrew S Bzowyckyj2, Andrew P Traynor3.   

Abstract

Objectives. To identify peer reviewer and peer review characteristics that enhance manuscript quality and editorial decisions, and to identify valuable elements of peer reviewer training programs. Methods. A three-school, 15-year review of pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration faculty's publications was conducted to identify high-publication volume journals for inclusion. Editors-in-chief identified all editors managing manuscripts for participation. A three-round modified Delphi process was used. Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Results. Nineteen editors representing eight pharmacy journals participated. Three characteristics of reviews were rated required or helpful in enhancing manuscript quality by all respondents: includes a critical analysis of the manuscript (88% required, 12% helpful), includes feedback that contains both strengths and areas of improvement (53% required, 47% helpful), and speaks to the manuscript's utility in the literature (41% required, 59% helpful). Hands-on experience with review activities (88%) and exposure to good and bad reviews (88%) were identified as very valuable to peer reviewer development. Conclusion. Reviewers, individuals involved in faculty development, and journals should work to assist new reviewers in defining focused areas of expertise, building knowledge in these areas, and developing critical analysis skills.

Keywords:  faculty development; manuscript; peer review; quality; training programs

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28630514      PMCID: PMC5468711          DOI: 10.5688/ajpe81473

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ        ISSN: 0002-9459            Impact factor:   2.047


  45 in total

1.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.

Authors:  S Van Rooyen; F Godlee; S Evans; R Smith; N Black
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.

Authors:  James W Navalta; T Scott Lyons
Journal:  Adv Physiol Educ       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.288

3.  Developing a framework of, and quality indicators for, general practice management in Europe.

Authors:  Yvonne Engels; Stephen Campbell; Maaike Dautzenberg; Pieter van den Hombergh; Henrik Brinkmann; Joachim Szécsényi; Hector Falcoff; Luc Seuntjens; Beat Kuenzi; Richard Grol
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2005-02-18       Impact factor: 2.267

4.  Your role and responsibilities in the manuscript peer review process.

Authors:  Gayle A Brazeau; Joseph T Dipiro; Jack E Fincham; Bradley A Boucher; Timothy S Tracy
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 2.047

5.  Visions for required postgraduate year 1 residency training by 2020: a comparison of actual versus projected expansion.

Authors:  Katherine K Knapp; Bijal M Shah; Helen Bo Hyun Kim; Hien Tran
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.705

6.  What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

Authors:  N Black; S van Rooyen; F Godlee; R Smith; S Evans
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.

Authors:  M L Callaham; W G Baxt; J F Waeckerle; R L Wears
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.

Authors:  Travis I Lovejoy; Tracey A Revenson; Christopher R France
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2011-08

Review 9.  A hierarchy of effective teaching and learning to acquire competence in evidenced-based medicine.

Authors:  Khalid S Khan; Arri Coomarasamy
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

Authors:  Michael L Callaham; John Tercier
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.