A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at early career researchers with little or no experience in peer reviewing journal articles.
Explain : Scientific or technical research
Characterized by : Detail, test procedure, objective analysis, documented research, report and observation (based on evidence)
steps in research proposal or aspect of research proposalZaryabQureshi3
this slide is all about the research methodology or research proposal in this slide you will found the steps of doing research or present your proposal.
Explain : Scientific or technical research
Characterized by : Detail, test procedure, objective analysis, documented research, report and observation (based on evidence)
steps in research proposal or aspect of research proposalZaryabQureshi3
this slide is all about the research methodology or research proposal in this slide you will found the steps of doing research or present your proposal.
The aim of the journal article is to communicate your research effectively and help readers understand the issues at hand. Structure your manuscript so that readers take away the most important messages.
Scientific integrity calls for some basic originality. Plagiarism can destroy this original creativity and ideation. This presentation defines plagiarism (stealing from others' works) and some of the creative and systematic remedies.
What are the study limitations, and how should they be stated.pdfPubricahealthcare
Journal Selection and Recommendation with wide variety of services such as Journal Selection, Assistance with publication planning and Journal Submission, Peer Review, Resubmissions and Responses to Reviewers comments, Formatting Services, Artwork preparation.
Presented as part of the Capacity Building in Policy Briefs Development Workshop conducted by Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health Care and Knowledge Translation
In collaboration with World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean in King Saud University 2019.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at early career researchers with little or no experience in peer reviewing journal articles.
A recording of the workshop is available here:
https://youtu.be/AGIpuBodZA0
Becoming a Scholar and Author: Publish in the #TACUSPA JournalLaura Pasquini
The academic writing process and ways for Student Affairs scholar-practitioners, professionals, and graduate students to get involved with the TACUSPA Journal: www.studentaffairs.com
Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper?KnihovnaUTB
Přednášející: Katarzyna Gaca-Zając, PhD Eng. | Elsevier
***********
Během školení se jeho účastníci naučí úspěšně napsat kvalitní vědecký článek, který bude korespondovat s vědeckou komunitou a umožní jeho autorům získat uznání. Představeny budou osvědčené postupy, které jsou založeny na zkušenostech výzkumných pracovníků, redaktorů a čtenářů. Školení je určeno především začínajícím výzkumným pracovníkům, vítáni jsou ale všichni vědečtí pracovníci a akademici.
**********
During this training the attendees will learn how to successfully write a good quality research paper, which will resonate well with the scientific community and will allow them to gain recognition. A summary of the best practices in writing will be presented and these are based on experience of researchers, editors and readers. The training is addressed primarily to young researchers, although senior academics are also welcome to attend.
10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER, IN YOUR EARLY CAREERMicah Altman
A talk sponsored by the MIT Postdoctoral Association with support from the Office of the Vice President for Research.
In the rapidly changing world of research and scholarly communications researchers are faced with a rapidly growing range of options to publicly disseminate, review, and discuss research—options which will affect their long-term reputation. Junior scholars must be especially thoughtful in choosing how much effort to invest in dissemination and communication, and what strategies to use.
In this talk, I briefly discuss a number of review of bibliometric and scientometric studies of quantitative research impact, a sampling of influential qualitative writings advising this area, and an environmental scan of emerging researcher profile systems. Based on this review, and on professional experience on dozens of review panels, I suggest some steps junior researchers may consider when disseminating their research and participating in public review and discussion.
Peer review is often seen as a cornerstone of modern science. We are going to discuss the current peer review practices in software engineering research, their strengths and limitations. Next we will discuss tips and tricks for writing code reviews, as well as implications for writing papers. I will also share some insights in my own reviewing practices.
The aim of the journal article is to communicate your research effectively and help readers understand the issues at hand. Structure your manuscript so that readers take away the most important messages.
Scientific integrity calls for some basic originality. Plagiarism can destroy this original creativity and ideation. This presentation defines plagiarism (stealing from others' works) and some of the creative and systematic remedies.
What are the study limitations, and how should they be stated.pdfPubricahealthcare
Journal Selection and Recommendation with wide variety of services such as Journal Selection, Assistance with publication planning and Journal Submission, Peer Review, Resubmissions and Responses to Reviewers comments, Formatting Services, Artwork preparation.
Presented as part of the Capacity Building in Policy Briefs Development Workshop conducted by Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health Care and Knowledge Translation
In collaboration with World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean in King Saud University 2019.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at early career researchers with little or no experience in peer reviewing journal articles.
A recording of the workshop is available here:
https://youtu.be/AGIpuBodZA0
Becoming a Scholar and Author: Publish in the #TACUSPA JournalLaura Pasquini
The academic writing process and ways for Student Affairs scholar-practitioners, professionals, and graduate students to get involved with the TACUSPA Journal: www.studentaffairs.com
Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper?KnihovnaUTB
Přednášející: Katarzyna Gaca-Zając, PhD Eng. | Elsevier
***********
Během školení se jeho účastníci naučí úspěšně napsat kvalitní vědecký článek, který bude korespondovat s vědeckou komunitou a umožní jeho autorům získat uznání. Představeny budou osvědčené postupy, které jsou založeny na zkušenostech výzkumných pracovníků, redaktorů a čtenářů. Školení je určeno především začínajícím výzkumným pracovníkům, vítáni jsou ale všichni vědečtí pracovníci a akademici.
**********
During this training the attendees will learn how to successfully write a good quality research paper, which will resonate well with the scientific community and will allow them to gain recognition. A summary of the best practices in writing will be presented and these are based on experience of researchers, editors and readers. The training is addressed primarily to young researchers, although senior academics are also welcome to attend.
10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER, IN YOUR EARLY CAREERMicah Altman
A talk sponsored by the MIT Postdoctoral Association with support from the Office of the Vice President for Research.
In the rapidly changing world of research and scholarly communications researchers are faced with a rapidly growing range of options to publicly disseminate, review, and discuss research—options which will affect their long-term reputation. Junior scholars must be especially thoughtful in choosing how much effort to invest in dissemination and communication, and what strategies to use.
In this talk, I briefly discuss a number of review of bibliometric and scientometric studies of quantitative research impact, a sampling of influential qualitative writings advising this area, and an environmental scan of emerging researcher profile systems. Based on this review, and on professional experience on dozens of review panels, I suggest some steps junior researchers may consider when disseminating their research and participating in public review and discussion.
Peer review is often seen as a cornerstone of modern science. We are going to discuss the current peer review practices in software engineering research, their strengths and limitations. Next we will discuss tips and tricks for writing code reviews, as well as implications for writing papers. I will also share some insights in my own reviewing practices.
Do you need to write a research paper, Journals/Articles or Assignments to fulfill your degree requirements or to get it published for enhancing your degree credentials?
Then you can use our custom research paper writing and publishing services as our works carry guarantee of, No Plagiarism, Proper and Correct Referencing and Genuine Original Work.
Moreover, our works also include unique ideas, innovativeness and creativity that distinguish our compiled work from others. We also hold expertise in Statistical Analysis such as Regression Analysis, ANOVA, Chi-Square Tests, Z-Tests, Correlation, MANOVA, T-Tests etc using SPSS and AMOS.
We also provide Publication of your work in esteemed National and International Journals (with Impact Factor more than 1.0). We also provide ISSN Number, ISBN Number, Publishing Certificate along with a Hard Copy and Online Publication.
Introduction to Library Research Skills
How do I effectively and efficiently do research and navigate the college's online library?
This workshop will introduce you to the principles of academic research and show you how to best use the ESC Library resources to find sources and cite them in your academic papers.
Research, Writing, and Publishing in High Impact JournalsDr. Abdul Mujeebu M
This is compilation of my presentations in a recent workshop at AMU Aligarh, India. Interested institutions can contact me for conducting similar workshop.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students
and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal
articles.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal
articles.
A recording of the workshop is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bADqylF8qqA&t=618s
Learn more about peer review from the perspectives of an Editor-in-Chief, Online Publishing Systems Administrator, Associate Editor, Associate Editor Mentee and a Reviewer.
An interactive workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
A recording of the workshop is available here:
https://youtu.be/GBQK62_qCLw
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
2. @SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
13 September 2023
Peer review in scholarly journals
P E E R
E
V
I
E
W
PROGRAMME
Welcome and introduction
What is peer review and what is it not? Jemma Finch, UKZN Associate Editor: SAJS
What reviewers should know about peer review Nkosinathi Madondo, MUT Associate Editor Mentee:
SAJS
What authors should know about peer review Shane Redelinghuys, Wits Associate Editor Mentee:
SAJS
Q&A
What everyone should know about AI and peer
review
Martin Bekker Wits University
Where to start with peer review Leslie Swartz, SUN Editor-in-Chief: SAJS
Q&A
Thanks and closure
5. What is peer review
and what is it not?
Jemma Finch
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
13 September 2023
Peer review in
scholarly journals
P E E R
E
V
I
E
W
9. What is peer review?
• Check quality, novelty, significance and
presentation
• Constructive
• Collegial and respectful
• Detailed and comprehensive
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
10. What is peer review?
• Independent, unbiased
• Anonymous (depending on the model)
• Confidential
• Professional service
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
11. What is it not?
• Gatekeeping
• Spelling and grammar check
• Opinions unaccompanied by evidence
• Personal
• Paid (usually)
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
12. What is it not?
• A chance to:
• Pull apart other people’s work
• Show how clever you are
• Advance competing interests
• Help your buddies
• Boost your citations
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
13. What are we striving for?
• Diverse reviewers: origin, gender, career
stage
• Transparency
• Fairness
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
14. Further reading
• Small Pond Science Blog ‘Why I don’t have trouble finding peer reviewers’
https://smallpondscience.com/2022/07/20/why-i-dont-have-trouble-finding-peer-
reviewers/#more-27097
• Stephen Heard’s Scientist Sees Squirrel Blog ‘How (as an editor) I choose lists
of reviewers’ https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2018/12/20/how-as-an-
editor-i-choose-lists-of-reviewers/
• Lamont 2009: How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic
Judgment. Harvard University Press.
• Day & Gastel 2012: How to write and publish a scientific paper. Cambridge
University Press.
• Cargill & O’Connor 2013: Writing Scientific Research Articles. Wiley
Blackwell.
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
15. What reviewers need to
know about peer
review?
nathi madondo
13 September 2023
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
Peer review in
scholarly journals
P E E R
E
V
I
E
W
17. Taking the scholarship forward
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
A cursory report cannot
A detailed report can
In a way, not only reviewing the quality of
the manuscript but also your quality as a
reviewer (Boughey, 2022).
18. What isthe quality of a
manuscript?
Well presented and clear argument
Topic has the potential to inform current
debate
Methodological coherence
Conceptual depth
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
19. What quality is not?
Unsubstantiated claims – sweeping
statements
Some authors try to make an easy
publication to earn subsidy
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
20. The paper to review should be in the
area of expertise of the reviewer to be
able to judge its quality
To avoid cursory report
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
To judge quality …
21. So, to review is to take the scholarship
forward
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
22. Concluding thoughts
A big challenge to take the scholarship
forward - neo-liberal agenda
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
23. References
Boughey, C. (2023, March 31). NRF rating process
with Professor Chrissie Boughey [video file]. You
tube. https://youtu.be/uIqdjb3z1l8
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
24. What authors should know about
peer review
Shane Redelinghuys
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
13 September 2023
Peer review in
scholarly journals
P E E R
E
V
I
E
W
26. Know your publisher’s policies
• Manuscript submission instructions (formatting, referencing
style, word limit)
• Attention to detail will improve the aesthetics of your manuscript
– simplify reading to appreciate the content
• Streamlines the review process, minimise turnaround time
• Publishing agreements (e.g., open access, publication fees) &
ethical principles
27. • Is it acceptable?
Yes!
Won’t affect the handling of your paper or the review process
Do so respectfully
First, use the online tracking system of the journal to track status
Will hear back very soon if manuscript not suited for the journal
‘Under review’ – reviewers have been invited / waiting for
reviewers to accept review / waiting for reviewers to submit their
review reports / reviews being assessed by AE
Follow-up on submission
28. • When is a good time to do so?
Subject matter – dependent, technicality of your paper
After 3-6 months
Follow-up on submission
An analysis of ~3 million papers indexed in PubMed from 1981 to 2015
indicated that the median time-until-acceptance has remained consistent at
around 100 days (i.e., approx. 3 months)
29. • A platform on which researchers tell others about their experiences with a
particular journal
• A tool to help you determine which journal to submit to, based on researcher-
provided statistics:
Time until first review received
Total handling time
Time until desk rejection (rejection without review)
Number of review reports received
Quality of reviews (ranked out of 5) (subjective)
Number of rounds of review
SciRev – An extra layer of transparency?
30.
31.
32. • Don’t take it personal
• Manuscript rejection – does not mean it is the end of the road for
your paper
• Consider why – take reviews into account – May be too
specialised/general
• Decide if the work is worth resubmitting (most of the time it is)
• Improve work by taking a different approach with your analysis –
brainstorm with peers
Rejection – what to do?
33. @SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
Sources
• Peer review ethics: Six things every author should know
https://www.apa.org/about/division/digest/publishing/peer-review-ethics
• The history of publishing delays
https://blog.dhimmel.com/history-of-delays/
• The peer review process
https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-
review/the-peer-review-process.html
• Stichting SciRev
https://scirev.org/
34. Martin Bekker
School of Electronic and Information Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
LLMs tools and you, the peer reviewer
35. Our time together
How do LLMs work?
What are they good at?
What are they bad at?
How to get the best out of LLMs
What do I do if something smells fishy?
What level of AI-support is acceptable?
How should AI be referenced?
(How) should prompts be shared?
36. Warning: Strong Language and Sensitive Content
The following presentation contains examples of language and content that may be
offensive, including swearing, violent language, and racist undertones. These examples are
presented solely for the purpose of analysis and discussion, highlighting the impact of such
language in certain contexts. The intention is not to endorse or promote any form of
discrimination, violence, or offensive behaviour.
It is important to approach these examples with sensitivity and understanding, recognizing
that they may cause discomfort or distress. We encourage you to exercise discretion when
considering the appropriateness of this content for your audience.
Please note that the presentation aims to foster awareness, education, and critical thinking
regarding the use of offensive language and its potential effects. We strongly condemn any
form of discrimination, violence, or hate speech, and advocate for respectful and inclusive
communication.
By proceeding with this presentation, you acknowledge that you have been provided with
this warning and disclaimer, and that you understand the purpose and context in which
these examples are being presented.
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
38. Large Language Models
Many available today
A corpus of text
A stochastic model
A base model
Safety layers
Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
40. Strengths // What it is good at
Repackaging of ideas
Summating text
Style transfer
Fixing grammar
Brainstorming / Dinner Ideas / Essay Ideas
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
44. Weaknesses
Mathematical model ≠ not a linguistic model
Stochastic parrot
Hallucinations
Causal reasoning
Jailbreaking
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
52. Hidden Harms
Human Labour Exploitation
Environmental
Monopolising power
(Fundamental?) Un-understandability
Commodity Fetishism
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
53. Threats
Claims of IP non-consent (and theft)
Racism, sexism, hate speech (based on training biases)
Poor advice (negligent, dangerous, harmful)
Mass-scale cheating
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
58. How to get the best out of LLMs
Only use for what it’s good (narrow!)
Only use once the thinking’s done (generally)
Never let it have the final say
59. • GTPZero
• Quillbot.com
• Quetext.com
• AIdetector.com
• Scale.ai
• Originality.ai
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
Prompt: Write an essay on {insert topic} in {insert wordcount} in
the style of an 18-year old second langue speaker. Use at least 10
unusual words, and two sentences must be translated directly
from Afrikaans, using Afrikaans grammar.
Academics (ad students!) are human
It’s dangerous to think one can outsmart tech (most of the time)
Critical thinking under threat
60. What do I do if something smells fishy?
1. Understand where your publication stands vis-à-vis LLMs (default
should be ‘none’
2. Seek acknowledgements
3. Search (a few) citations
4. Talk to author
61. How should AI-help be referenced?
If usage permitted -
Norms (e.g. APA)
Acknowledgements
Level
Github / Repository
{but consider how would
journal check for
paraphrased plagiarism?}
63. Use Ban
Grammar and spelling assistance / Proofing
Co-creation / Editor
Brainstorming and planning
‘Over to you’ / No holds barred
Show your prompts
Responsible for your work
Martin Bekker // martin.bekker@wits.ac.za
65. Where to start
with peer review
Leslie Swartz
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
#PeerReview
13 September 2023
Peer review in
scholarly journals
P E E R
E
V
I
E
W
66. A recap,
and some
principles
Peer review is central to the academic enterprise, and
is as important as writing your own articles
There is currently a crisis in peer reviewing – it is hard
for journals to find peer reviewers, and without peer
review journals cannot continue to function
We are all peers
We all have a responsibility to keep the peer review
system going
A rule of thumb: for every time I send an article for
review, I should be prepared to review another article
67. What do I want from a peer reviewer?
• I want someone who is
• Competent
• Constructive
• Fair
• Kind
• Clear
• Focused on making my work better
• Not trying to make me a version of themselves
68. “I am not good enough”
Academics and impostor
syndrome – who do NOT
think that they are
impostors?
The academic hierarchy
(“only professors….”)
What do you really need to
know, and what don’t you
need to know?
It is fine to point out the
limitations of your
knowledge in your review
(the editor may well have
chosen a range of
competencies
You don’t have
to pretend
69. “I’m not
sure I am
the right
person to
review
this”
• Make a list of what you think you can and
cannot do
• How important is what you can do to
helping the author and the journal?
• How much of a barrier is what you can’t do
for your ability to be helpful?
Read the paper quickly, and then:
• Don’t be shy to contact the editor and raise
any concerns – we editors are grateful to
you and want to work with you!
If still in doubt
70. Your role
as a
reviewer is
that of a
‘peer
mentor’
(Way, et
al, 2021)
You are not expected to know everything,
but you can make it clear what you do and
don’t know
Four main
areas:
Do I understand the
methods?
Do I have a good idea of
who the audience is for
this journal? Can I stand
as a ‘representative’ of
that audience?
Do I know enough about
the content to
comment?
Have the authors told
me enough about the
context of the work that
I can make an
assessment?
Way DP, Bierer SB, Cianciolo AT, Gruppen L, Riddle JM,
Mavis B. Fundamentals of Scholarly Peer Review: A
Workshop for Health Professions Educators on Practicing
Scholarly Citizenship. MedEdPORTAL. 2021 Aug 2;17:11174.
71. You are not
alone…
• Get help from others and give help
to others, but ONLY ONCE YOU HAVE
ASKED THE EDITOR IF YOU MAY DO
THIS
• Concerns:
• Confidentiality and respect for
authors
• “Ghost reviewing” and
exploitation of more junior
reviewers, hidden from sight
• In this – remember your rights, those
of the authors, and those of the
journal
72. You are
not
alone…
• Consider some options
• Ask your supervisor/a more
experienced colleague to
include you in peer reviewing
when they get approached
• Approach a more senior
colleague/supervisor to help you
when you get asked to peer
review
• Develop peer review buddy
systems (peer to peer)
73. Peer review buddy systems (1)
• Link in with “shut up and write” – writing support systems
• Journal clubs also useful
• A good place to start, even before you do peer reviews
yourselves:
• Make a commitment that you and your buddies will “peer
review” reviews you yourselves receive from journals.
• Assess the reviews you receive in terms of competence,
respectfulness, constructiveness, etc; and
• Suggest in your group ways in which the reviews could
have been improved
74. Peer
review
buddy
systems
(2)
First, establish rules
of confidentiality for
your group
Always get
permission from the
editor to use a peer
system
Step 1: Each
(independently)
sketch out areas to
be covered in review
Step 2: Distribute the
tasks and each do
your task
Step 3: Review what
one another have
done
Step 4: Assemble full
review
75. • Write in a supportive tone, but be definitive
• Summarize your understanding of the work
• Explain your overall impressions (recommendation /
ratings)
• Base your overall impressions on actual content
• Indicate strengths and weaknesses, providing specific
examples
• Provide suggestions for improvement
• Be detailed and clear
• Explain any descriptors, such as “insufficient method”
Tips for Writing Comments*
* Dudek NL, Marks MB, Wood TJ, Lee AC. Assessing the quality of supervisor’s
completed clinical evaluation reports. Med Educ 2008; 42:816-22.
NOTE: THIS SLIDE IN ITS ENTIRETY IS COPIED FROM Way DP, Bierer SB, Cianciolo AT, Gruppen L, Riddle JM, Mavis B. Fundamentals of Scholarly Peer Review: A
Workshop for Health Professions Educators on Practicing Scholarly Citizenship. MedEdPORTAL. 2021;17:11174. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-
8265.11174
76. A PLEA
FROM A
JOURNAL
EDITOR
Please do not undermine the
peer review process while it is
underway, BUT
Do not
undermine
the process
Please do give journals feedback
on peer review experiences,
good and bad
Do give
feedback
Remember: we need to peer
review peer review!
Remember