Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments. Methods This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in 2 mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. Mentors and mentees completed pre-program demographic and review experience questionnaires. Outcome measures included (1) total and sub-scores on the modified Review Quality Index (mRQI) applied to the same pre-selected research manuscript reviewed by mentees both pre and post intervention, (2) mentee self-perceived comfort with and understanding of the review process using a custom questionnaire, and (3) mentor satisfaction surveys. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.3–35.8)) was higher than pre-program total score (26.6 (19.7–29.7)) for the 42 mentees who completed both pre- and post-program reviews. Mentees reported improved perception of review (median (IQR) pre = 4 (3–4), post = 5 (4–5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2–4), post = 4 (4–5)) as well as self-perceived confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) pre = 2 (2–3), post = 4 (4–4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2–4), post = 4 (4–5)) manuscripts following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted. Mentors reported high scores for enjoyment (median (range) 5/5 (3–5)) and interest in repeat participation (5/5 (2–5)). Conclusions A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction.
Lyons‐Warren et al. (Fri,) studied this question.