| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Editorials |
1 From the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215. Received May 11, 2007; final version accepted May 14. Address correspondence to: the author (e-mail: rsheiman{at}bidmc.harvard.edu).
When I began reviewing manuscripts for Radiology some years ago, I would occasionally come across a scientific paper that potentially put forth a unique message or advancement but for which the important take-home message was almost impossible to extract due to the manuscript's construction. I would conclude that either the authors had never been exposed to formal scientific writing methods or there was potentially a senior author or mentor whose input on manuscript construction was lacking or unheeded. I always believed that creation of a publishable manuscript depended not only on sound science but also on an understanding of the manuscript review process.
The literature contains many works that formally detail the manuscript review process (1–3). The utility of such publications is supported by evidence that formal didactic training and knowledge of defined criteria for manuscript review have a positive impact on review quality (4,5). In the work by Schroter et al (5), manuscript reviewers either attended a formal workshop or were given a self-teaching training package. Both forms of education focused on what a journal editor looked for in a manuscript reviewer, as well as how to critique a manuscript. Immediately after training, manuscript review quality was higher in both groups compared with a control group (those receiving no formal review training). Of interest, the benefits from training were not seen after 6 months. Such findings indicate the importance of training for manuscript review but also raise the question of the need for long-term training of individuals who wish to perform manuscript review.
Reviewer age also seems to play a part in the quality of manuscript review. Kliewer et al (6,7) tried to identify attributes that can predict a reviewer's assessment of a scientific work. They found older reviewers with more experience tended to assign a lower score for overall manuscript importance. These authors felt that perhaps older reviewers favor manuscripts more in accord with their own views while younger reviewers seem to be more open-minded. This finding is also echoed by others (8,9) who quantitatively found that younger reviewers and those of more junior academic rank have the potential to produce more incisive and thoughtful reviews compared with their older and seasoned colleagues. Indirect support that younger individuals are more open-minded and less biased when performing a review also comes from the work of Ernst and Resch (10). In studying a reviewer's assessment of a fictitious scientific paper that was focused on the reviewer's field of expertise, it was found that a reviewer's own concepts and bias affected how he or she judged the manuscript.
Since, as stated by Lee Rogers, "Good reviewers make good journals" (11), how can we at Radiology identify those individuals with great potential as manuscript reviewers? Clearly, a continuous training process of younger individuals makes sense and can help identify those individuals who hold great promise as reviewers. Where can we find such individuals? Radiology residency programs across the country are an excellent source of eager young individuals who are more than willing to educate themselves and advance our field.
In September 2006, we implemented at our institution a reviewer mentorship program that we hope will help identify individuals interested in becoming manuscript reviewers for the long term. The large number of Radiology associate editors to function as mentors within our radiology department afforded us acceleration of the process and ongoing program refinement. The program is now formally referred to as the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Reviewer Mentorship Program.
The RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program is voluntary, and interested residents in our department are paired with a mentor on the basis of personalities and areas of interest. A new mentee will first be asked to review the recently updated Radiology editorial (12) that sets forth the rigorous approach to manuscript review suggested for Radiology reviewers. Additionally, to understand processing of manuscripts by Radiology, new mentees are also asked to review another recently updated editorial (13). These potential new reviewers then receive selected prior Radiology manuscript reviews performed by their mentors to allow appreciation of their mentors' styles of reviewing. A current Radiology manuscript under review by the mentor is simultaneously and independently reviewed by the mentee. The time course of review as set forth by Radiology is adhered to by both. Prior to formal submission of a finalized manuscript review to Radiology, each party evaluates the other's review, first separately and then together. The mentor then personally critiques the mentee's review. The final formal submitted review may contain insightful comments identified by the mentee.
The mentor also critiques the mentee's review by using a five-point scoring system: A score of 1 is considered outstanding and requires that the mentee identifies all major positives and shortcomings of the manuscript under review and also gives insightful and useful comments on how to rectify these shortcomings; 3 indicates that the mentee has identified some but not all positives and shortcomings and has also offered helpful suggestions on manuscript improvement overall; and a score of 5 is assigned when even the most obvious positives and shortcomings of the manuscript have been overlooked and no suggestions have been made for manuscript improvement. A score of 5 implies that the manuscript review is incomplete and of no utility. Because of Radiology's commitment to timely reviews, a score of 1 cannot be assigned even to an outstanding mentee review unless the mentee has adhered to the timeline for manuscript review. By using this scoring system, our hope is to quantitatively see a learning curve over the course of the mentee's enrollment in the program. Mentees may choose to change mentors once they and their current mentor feel they are ready to experience another associate editor's approach to manuscript review.
We wish the process to be continuous and thus request a decision concerning commitment by each resident involved after he or she has experienced one "round" of reviews. Our goal is to have the resident/mentee involved in at least two reviews per year over the course of the residency; this number was chosen with the understanding that the resident may often be offsite due to electives or formal radiology didactic training at other institutions.
Communication from our residents involved in the RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program attests to the program's importance and impact. They believe it offers tremendous insight into the manuscript review and preparation process, both of which are necessary for those interested in an academic career. The consensus has been that the program resembles a journal club but takes the exercise to a much more advanced level—to critically review an original manuscript and construct a thoughtful, thorough, and helpful set of comments to guide manuscript revision. Our mentees have seen and appreciate the difficulty in determining if a manuscript deserves a place in the scientific literature, if Radiology is the right place for it, and the role of the reviewer to aid in improving a manuscript regardless of its final disposition. Being involved in the RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program is perceived as an opportunity to develop critical skills in an environment that is ideal because of having an experienced mentor guiding them through the review process.
By participating in the review of scientific manuscripts, we hope to identify potential future reviewers for Radiology and other scientific journals, increase the confidence of residents who contemplate an academic career, and expose residents to mentor and author analytical thought processes that help keep Radiology at the cutting edge of our field. At the termination of the process (review of at least six to eight manuscripts), and based on the mentor's assessment of the mentee and the mentee's manuscript review scores, the mentor may choose to recommend the resident to become a formal reviewer for Radiology. The resident is also able to formally document participation in the RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program on his or her curriculum vitae. To date, one of our residents has reached the status of having been recommended and accepted as a reviewer for Radiology.
Participation in the RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program affords a resident the opportunity to become a reviewer for Radiology and can catapult him or her into an academic career. Involvement also allows fellowship directors and academic institutions to identify those residents seriously pursuing such a career and, importantly, enables our specialty to nurture its future academicians.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
 TOP References |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
