Training package for BMJ peer reviewers

Objectives

Do you review work for the BMJ, or are you thinking about becoming a BMJ reviewer? If so, we hope you will use this training pack. It will help you to learn more about peer review, and to understand what makes a review really useful to editors and authors.

The pack includes PowerPoint presentations and written exercises. Much of the material here relates to the general art of peer review, but we have also included specific guidance on what the BMJ needs from you.

We developed this pack for use in a randomised controlled trial of peer reviewer training. Now you can use it as you wish; for your own learning or to teach others. There are four objectives:

• To inform participants on the state of peer review research
  
• To make clear what constitutes a good review
• To help participants understand what matters to editors about reviews
• To give participants help in producing a good review

Objective One: To inform participants on the state of peer review research

Download What we know about peer review (Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, 50 KB)

• Rennie R. Editorial peer review:its development and rationale (PDF - 71 KB)
  In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:1-13.
• Overbeke J, Wager E. The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review (PDF - 89KB). In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:45-61.
• Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effectiveness of editorial peer review (PDF - 82 KB). In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:62-75.
• Martyn C. Peer review: some questions from Socrates (PDF - 46 KB). In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:322-8.
• Smith R. The future of peer review (PDF - 82 KB). In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:329-46.
• WAME website has a good bibliography, including original research on peer review
• JAMA website for abstracts and articles from the Second, Third, and Fourth Peer Review Congresses.

Objective Two: To make clear what constitutes a good review

What editors want (Microsoft PowerPoint presentation - 83 KB)

Further reading:

• Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript (PDF - 51 KB). In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:183-90.
• Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to survive peer review (PDF - 261 KB). London: BMJ Books, 2002.

Objective Three: To help participants understand what matters to editors about reviews

Below are three reviews of manuscripts recently published in the BMJ. Having read the presentation on what editors want from reviewers, we would like you to read these three reviews and note their strengths and weaknesses. This exercise should take approximately 15 minutes. Having noted the strengths and weaknesses of each review, read our critique of each review from the editorial perspective.

• Referee’s report for Paper A
• Referee’s report for Paper B
• Referee’s report for Paper C
• Editors critique of the three reports

We would like you to do a practice rapid review of the paper titled: Randomized trial of diet and gastroplasty compared with diet alone in morbid obesity. To help guide your review, we have also provided a question sheet, and links to our standard Guidance for Reviewers and the CONSORT statement. You should spend approximately 30 minutes on this exercise. It is not a "formal" review and we do not want you to send us your review.

• Manuscript to review (PDF - 107 KB)
• Question sheet to help guide your review
• General guidance for BMJ peer reviewers
• CONSORT statement
  

This paper was actually published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1984. We recently asked two of our reviewers to provide sample reviews of this paper to be used as material in our study. We consider these reviews to be of high quality and so have included them in this training package. Please do not read these sample reviews until after you have completed the exercise above.

• Sample review (1)
• Sample review (2)