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
. 2022 Oct 16;14(10):e30341.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.30341. eCollection 2022 Oct.

Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review

Affiliations
Review

Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review

B M Munasinghe et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Peer reviewers are considered gatekeepers in academic writing who play a pivotal and essential role during the publication process. Excellent manuscripts invariably need excellent reviewers. Producing peer reviewers with such caliber is time-consuming albeit necessary for the progress and continuity of academia. Despite the popular belief that an experienced author invariably makes a good reviewer, the reality is far-fetched. This suggests the need for peer reviewer training, which should be effective, logistically affordable, and demonstrate long-lasting positive impacts. Open review, co-review, and several reviewer training programs are already in place for this purpose with varying efficiencies. This narrative review discusses the current modalities available to a junior reviewer to improve his/her review skills and proposes a reviewer residency concept that could be adopted as a part of peer reviewer training.

Keywords: co-reviewing; junior reviewer; open review; peer review; peer reviewer; reviewer residency; trainee reviewer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of a "Reviewer Residency" program

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers. Alam S, Patel J. BMC Med. 2015;13:269. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Garisto D. Nature Index. Diversifying peer review by adding junior scientists. Nat Index. 2019. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/diversifying-peer-review-b... pp. 777–784.https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/diversifying-peer-review-b...
    1. Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: an international study. Jamali HR, Nicholas D, Watkinson A, et al. Learn Publ. 2020;33:142–152.
    1. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. McDowell GS, Knutsen JD, Graham JM, Oelker SK, Lijek RS. Elife. 2019;8:0. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:6. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources