Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Nov 24;10(11):e039687.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039687.

Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit

Steven Kawczak  1 , Sultana Mustafa  2
Affiliations
Review

Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit

Steven Kawczak et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigates the learning outcomes for peer reviewers participating in a manuscript review continuing medical education (CME) process. CME from serving as a peer reviewer is one of the many benefits of serving as a reviewer.

Design: This is a descriptive study retrospectively analysing learning outcomes self-reported by peer reviewers from 2013 to 2017 using a CME assessment framework.

Setting, participants and primary outcome measures: Participant data are from 1985 peer reviewers who completed 2413 manuscript reviews over 32 medical journals from 2013 to 2017 and completed the CME process after their prepublication manuscript review. 417 reviewer responses were practice behaviour change(s) that were studied in depth using an assessment framework on changes in knowledge, competence and performance.

Results: The results show positive learning outcomes reported by reviewers at the knowledge, competence and performance behaviour levels as a result of reviewing manuscripts. Higher levels of learning outcomes are more frequently achieved when reviewers consult multiple sources when conducting reviews. Reviewer demographics, such as gender or years of experience, did not have a significant association to learning outcomes.

Conclusions: Manuscript Review CME is an effective way that learning within the peer reviewer process can occur and helps reviewers gain knowledge, improve competence and make changes to their professional practice at all stages of their careers. Journal publishers should emphasise and support reviewers through offering CME to reviewers and encourage consultation of multiple sources when conducting reviews, which is an added benefit and resource to help professionals continue their development.

Keywords: education & training (see medical education & training); medical education & training; natural science disciplines; statistics & research methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178–82. 10.1177/014107680609900414 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC 2014;25:227–43. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schroter S, Price A, Flemyng E, et al. . Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals. BMJ Open 2018;8:e023357. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Gregory J. Medical journals start Granting CME credit for peer review. Science Editor 2004;27:190–1.
    1. Snell L, Spencer J. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education Journal. Med Educ 2005;39:90–7. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources