Table 6.
Proposed Content for “Peer Review”
| Topic (Subtopics indented) | Percentage of panelists rating item as “important” or “very important” (Mean score) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Teaching | Assessing | |
| 1. The significance of peer review | 100* (3.64) | 73 (3.09) |
| a. Peer review as a mechanism for quality assurance in publication and funding | 100* (3.18) | 55 (2.64) |
| b. The need for reviewers to be competent and genuine peers | 91* (3.36) | 64 (2.82) |
| 2. Conflicts of Interest and Peer Reviews | 100* (3.73) | 91* (3.36) |
| a. Identifying potential conflict of interest reviewers may have | 100* (3.73) | 82* (3.18) |
| b. Managing conflicts of interest by excusing oneself from a review or disclosing and managing the conflict with the assistance of those directing the review |
100* (3.82) | 91* (3.27) |
| c. Other sources of peer review bias | 82* (3.09) | 55 (2.64) |
| 3. Qualities of a good review/reviewer | 82* (3.36) | 55 (2.64) |
| a. Respecting confidentiality and intellectual property (e.g., by avoiding use of information and destroying manuscripts after review) |
91* (3.27) | 64 (2.91) |
| b. Fairness and objectivity | 91* (3.55) | 70* (3.10) |
| c. Collegiality—conveying a respectful and professional tone while offering critical feedback |
80* (3.20) | 40 (2.30) |
| d. Timeliness | 82* (3.18) | 45 (2.45) |
| e. Providing clear, scientifically competent, and complete reviews | 91* (3.27) | 64 (3.00) |
| 4. Logistics of peer reviewing | 50 (2.40) | N/A† |
| a. Format of written review | 30 (2.20) | N/A† |
| b. Peer review process | 60 (2.70) | N/A† |
| c. Selection of reviewers | 50 (2.60) | N/A† |
| 5. Responding to reviewers | 82* (3.18) | 60 (2.70) |
| a. Responding to competent reviews: the revision and resubmission process | 60 (2.60) | N/A† |
| b. Responding to questionable, biased, or conflicted reviews: the roles of authors (PIs), editors, and scientific review chairs |
91* (3.18) | 64 (2.64) |
| c. Inappropriate responses to reviewers and modifications to publications or proposals |
60 (2.50) | N/A† |
| 6. Reviewer roles in ensuring RCR | 82* (2.91) | 36 (2.27) |
| 7. Editorial responsibilities | 55 (2.73) | 36 (2.27) |
| a. Selecting appropriate reviewers | 55 (2.73) | 36 (2.27) |
| b. Attending to matters of RCR (proper authorship, disclosure of bias and conflicts, etc) – 2.70 |
60 (2.70) | N/A† |
| c. Respecting rights of rebuttal and mediating disputes | 60 (2.60) | N/A† |
| d. Maintaining confidentiality | 64 (3.00) | 45 (2.55) |
Legend:
*
Item achieved a “consensus” by receiving a rating of important or very important from two-thirds of panelists
†
Not applicable because these items were eliminated after round 2 and their importance of being assessed was not measured