Increasing diversity in peer review with transparent mentoring of early career researchers

Peer review is central to the publishing process and has a fundamental role to play in maintaining the integrity of the published literature and advancing discovery. For the most part peer review works well with researchers wanting to improve not replace peer review. Indeed, in 2009, 91% of researchers surveyed as part of a Sense About Science survey felt peer review had improved their manuscript. However, despite this, peer review can sometimes come under criticism. Research output is growing exponentially and this is putting pressure on the system, with many individuals inundated with requests to peer review. We therefore wanted to see if there was a way to increase the diversity of peer reviewers who undertake peer review from the standard pool and bring more variety and inclusivity to the process. Today, we are delighted to announce that four BMC journals have launched a pilot aimed at increasing diversity and inclusivity in peer review by proactively endorsing peer review mentoring of early career researchers. These journals are Trials, Systematic Reviews, Pilot and Feasibility Studies and Journal of Medical Case Reports. Why are we proactively endorsing peer review mentoring? Anecdotally we hear that peer review mentoring frequently happens behind the scenes, with senior researchers involving their post-docs or PhD students in the process but not necessarily acknowledging them in the submitted report or informing the journal. We also often receive requests from time-s...
Source: BioMed Central Blog - Category: General Medicine Authors: Tags: Medical Evidence Open Access Publishing Journal of Medical Case Reports Pilot and Feasibility Studies Systematic Reviews Trials Source Type: blogs