Growing early career researchers pathways through co-review

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45269-0

IF: 16.6

2024-03-06

Nature Communications

Abstract:To build pathways to constructive and engaging peer review for the next generation of scientists, we invite all our reviewers to co-review with an Early Career Researcher in their group and let us know. We will ensure ECRs are recognised for their contribution.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Including Early Career Researchers in Scientific Publishing

Chen,X.,Gupta,S.,Russo,S.,Sitzia,G.,Westbrook,A.,White,S. R.,for the JNeurosci Early Career Researcher Advisory Board

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0907-24.2024

2024-06-06

Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract:Early career researchers (ECRs)—graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early stage independent investigators—represent the largest fraction of researchers in higher education (Friesenhahn and Beaudry, 2014) yet they are also the most vulnerable (Ledford, 2017; Bansal et al., 2022). One area of particular vulnerability and pressure is scientific publishing. ECRs often lack experience in navigating the publishing process independently, as trainees may rely on senior investigators to handle many aspects of the peer review and publishing processes. Additionally, early career investigators are seldom integrated into the core of scientific publishing, creating a gap between journals and the upcoming force of future scientific research. Yet, ECRs have the potential to bring fresh scientific perspectives, giving rise to innovative approaches that can enrich journal content and attract a wider readership. Additionally, their expertise in ... Correspondence should be addressed to Simone Russo at simone.russo.lab{at}gmail.com.

neurosciences
Celebrating and supporting early career researchers within underrepresented groups in materials science

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48495-8

IF: 16.6

2024-05-14

Nature Communications

Abstract:Nature Communications has been striving to support Early Career Researchers (ECRs) through different pilot schemes including the peer review mentoring programs and co-review mentoring initiative . The 2nd Rising Stars workshop, held at the Henry Royce Institute on the 9th of February, 2024, aims to celebrate and support rising stars within underrepresented groups in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects and this greatly aligns with the aspirations in our journal. In this conversation, the experiences and advice shared by representatives from various disciplines in the workshop are translated to a wider audience in Nature Communications. Dr Alex Ramadan (Lecturer at the University of Sheffield), Dr Lucy Whalley (Assistant Professor at Northumbria University), Dr Maddison Coke (Senior Experimental Officer at the University of Manchester), and Dr Yi Liu (Lecturer at Loughborough University) discuss the opportunities and challenges they face towards their career with work-life balance, family and caring responsibility, and diversity and inclusion in their workplace, and share their experiences on how mentorship supports their personal and professional growth.

multidisciplinary sciences
How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers

Ella T August,Andrew F Brouwer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae154

IF: 9.685

2024-12-03

International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Journal peer review is a gatekeeper in the scientific process, determining which papers are published in academic journals. It also supports authors in improving their papers before they go to press. Training for early-career researchers on how to conduct a high-quality peer review is scarce, however, and there are concerns about the quality of peer review in the health sciences. Standardized training and guidance may help reviewers to improve the quality of their feedback. In this paper, we approach peer review as a staged writing activity and apply writing process best practices to help early-career researchers and others learn to create a comprehensive and respectful peer-review report. The writing stages of reading, planning and composing are reflected in our three-step peer-review process. The first step involves reading the entire manuscript to get a sense of the paper as a whole. The second step is to comprehensive evaluate the paper. The third step, of writing the review, emphasizes a respectful tone, providing feedback that motivates revision as well as balance in pointing out strengths and making suggestions. Detailed checklists that are provided in the Supplementary material (available as Supplementary data at IJE online) aid in the paper evaluation process and examples demonstrate points about writing an effective review.

public, environmental & occupational health
Welcoming JNeurosci's Early Career Researcher Advisory Board

Kastner,S.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0908-24.2024

2024-06-06

Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract:Supporting our early career researchers (ECRs) is an important goal for JNeurosci and the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) as a whole. SfN has a longstanding tradition in fostering the careers of ECRs and has launched a number of important initiatives. For example, the Neuroscience Scholars Program reflects a deep commitment to promote diversity in science by providing a training program for career advancement directed at underrepresented graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. The Early Career Policy Ambassadors Program provides opportunities to engage in public outreach and advocacy for neuroscience research. The Trainee Professional Development Award recognizes scientific merit and excellence in early career researchers, helping to support their participation in the SfN annual meeting. Lastly, Neuronline (https://neuronline.sfn.org/), a website for learning and discussion, provides a multitude of professional development resources, many of them directed specifically at ECRs. The commitment of supporting our ECRs extends specifically to SfN's journals. ...

neurosciences
The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps

Nady El-Guebaly,John Foster,Anees Bahji,Matilda Hellman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221092862

Abstract:The critical role of peer reviewers in the publishing process is examined. Examples of typical challenges are provided, including the relative lack of rewards for this important task. Particular attention is paid to the need to consider the diversity of the peer reviewers recruited and impediments to the selection beyond Areas of Competence, often due to the small available pool. Finally, recommendations for improvement are suggested.
Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review

B M Munasinghe,Champa Chapman,Chinthaka Hewavitharane,Gayathri Hewawasam,T G Dissanayakege

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30341

2022-10-16

Cureus

Abstract:Peer reviewers are considered gatekeepers in academic writing who play a pivotal and essential role during the publication process. Excellent manuscripts invariably need excellent reviewers. Producing peer reviewers with such caliber is time-consuming albeit necessary for the progress and continuity of academia. Despite the popular belief that an experienced author invariably makes a good reviewer, the reality is far-fetched. This suggests the need for peer reviewer training, which should be effective, logistically affordable, and demonstrate long-lasting positive impacts. Open review, co-review, and several reviewer training programs are already in place for this purpose with varying efficiencies. This narrative review discusses the current modalities available to a junior reviewer to improve his/her review skills and proposes a reviewer residency concept that could be adopted as a part of peer reviewer training.
Towards inclusive funding practices for early career researchers

Charlotte M de Winde,Sarvenaz Sarabipour,Hugo Carignano,sejal davla,david eccles,Sarah Hainer,mansour haidar,Vinodh Ilangovan,Nafisa M Jadavji,Paraskevi Kritsiligkou,Tai-Ying Lee,Freyja Ólafsdóttir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9sfm8

2020-09-23

Abstract:Securing research funding is a challenge faced by most scientists in academic institutions worldwide. Funding success rates for all career stages are low, but the burden falls most heavily on early career researchers (ECRs) - young investigators in training and new principal investigators - who have a shorter track record and are dependent on funding to establish their academic career. The low number of career development awards and the lack of sustained research funding results in the loss of ECR talent in academia. Several steps in the current funding process, from grant conditions to the review process, play significant roles in the distribution of funds. Furthermore, there is an imbalance among certain research disciplines and labs of influential researchers that receive more funding. As a group of ECRs with global representation, we examined funding practices, barriers, facilitators, and alternatives to the current funding systems to diversify risk or award grants on a partly random basis. Based on our discussions, research, and collective opinions, we detail recommendations for funding agencies and grant reviewers to improve ECR funding prospects worldwide and promote a fairer and more inclusive funding landscape for ECRs.
Expand your editorial knowledge with us

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26154.3cf7b8a6-a180-4e5b-94b6-6827f2db0df2.1711640522

IF: 15

2024-03-28

Energy & Environmental Materials

Abstract:We're recruiting members for our Early Career Researchers Editorial Board . Develop your skills in: journal promotion peer review networking at academic events Join our team

materials science, multidisciplinary
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Christopher Allen,David M. A. Mehler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

IF: 9.8

2019-05-01

PLoS Biology

Abstract:The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Mentoring academic journal reviewers: brokering reviewing knowledge

John Adamson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.677593

IF: 2.027

2012-05-01

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Abstract:This paper reports on an ongoing programme to develop new academic journal reviewers through mentoring. It analyses data from correspondence between experienced reviewer/mentors and new reviewer/mentees at an online journal. With the overlying objective of improving internal review quality, the mentoring programme has been initiated to raise awareness of review issues, instead of formally evaluating reviewer performance. It stresses the importance of recognising the diversity of norms in academic writing, which builds on studies into the editorial process of online journals. Findings show the mentoring process is yielding benefits in sensitising new reviewers how to give constructive feedback to authors, argued in this study as ‘brokering’ knowledge of reviewing practice. Additionally, reviewer/mentors report that they too have become more aware of how to communicate effectively with new reviewers.

education & educational research
How I am working as a reviewer?

Andrzej Grzybowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16277

2024-01-01

Acta Ophthalmologica

Abstract:Peer review is designed to evaluate the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its aim is to provide the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor‐quality submissions. Moreover, the process of peer review adds value to the article by helping to improve that work. 90% of researchers feel that peer review improves the quality of their published paper. Peer reviewing is a critical, and constructive evaluation of submission, particularly including analysis of the paper structure and presentation, methodology strength and clarity; and originality of the study. There are some benefits related with reviewing. It makes a person better writer and better author of future scientific pieces. It helps to think critically about own research and become a better researcher. It is often a sign and proof of the reputation within the field. High‐quality reviews are noticed and appreciated by the editors, who often will invite reviewer to be more involved in editorial work, as an author of editorials or editorial board member. Very often journals invite new editorial members only with some previous history of reviewing for the journal. Reviewers also have often access to emerging ideas and trends much earlier than others.

ophthalmology
Career Development of Early Career Researchers via Distributed Peer Mentoring Networks

Annika Martin,Julia Mori,Dominik Emanuel Froehlich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3030034

2023-09-04

Merits

Abstract:This paper explores the challenges early career researchers (ECRs) face in academia and the benefits of being part of a distributed peer mentoring network. The study highlights the importance of social capital and emotional and motivational support in promoting wellbeing and career development, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the paper examines the impact of a collaborative environment on individual productivity and the development of clear goals. The study reveals that the supportive network of like-minded, ambitious people across borders and hierarchies offers the opportunity to identify with others and create a sense of belonging. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for qualitative methods of social network analysis to investigate the meaning of social structures in the career development of ECRs.
How to Encourage Best Peer Reviewers: an Empiric Approach

Omid Mahian,Somchai Wongwises

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.506

2015-01-01

Abstract:As editors of international journals, we are always challenged with picking the most relevant, available and highly skilled peer reviewers and receiving their comments on time. When relevant reviewers are selected, no-one can guarantee that the reviews will be submitted on time. One way to encourage the reviewers submit their comments and evaluations on time, or with minimal delays, is to implement 'spiritual' privileges. That option can be particularly helpful for traditional subscription journals, where authors do not pay any submission, processing, or publishing fees. In response to timely submission of reviews by responsible referees, journal editors can do a favor and process the referees' own manuscripts as high priority items. Of course, such a favorable attitude does not mean that mistakes in the study design, statistical analyses and interpretation of the results, ethical misconduct, or poor language can be tolerated and overlooked. Editors can use their reserves, add more rigor and invest more time for speeding up proper reviewing and editing of the most responsible reviewers' submissions. In such a favorable scenario, timeline of manuscript processing can be shortened by limiting periods before and after the acceptance of external reviewers' comments. In other words, the duration of 'with editor' status of the manuscripts can be decreased to a few hours-days (instead of few weeks-month for lower priority items). Furthermore, timeframe for external review itself can be diminished to 7-14 days for priority items (instead of 3-4 weeks for regular submissions). As an official recognition of the best reviewers' quality and timely contributions, editors should publicize their names in the annual acknowledgments on the journal websites and in print issues. Fortunately, more and more journal editors pay attention to these gestures of courtesy and specify the number of times their best referees contribute annually. Of course, frequent contributors (more than four reviews a year) deserve special attention and a range of rewards. To encourage the best reviewers further, publishers of online journals can waive or discount their publication fees. The same waivers and discounts are applicable to registration fees of conferences and seminars which are organized by the publishers. Last but not least importantly, financial rewards of varying degree can be arranged for the best reviewers annually.
An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers

Megan C Evans,Christopher Cvitanovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

2018-07-10

Palgrave Communications

Abstract:Scientists are increasingly required to demonstrate the real world tangible impacts arising from their research. Despite significant advances in scholarship dedicated to understanding and improving the relationships between science, policy and practice, much of the existing literature remains high level, theoretical, and not immediately accessible to early career researchers (ECRs) who work outside of the policy sciences. In this paper, we draw on the literature and our own experiences working in the environmental sciences to provide an accessible resource for ECRs seeking to achieve policy impact in their chosen field. First, we describe key concepts in public policy to provide sufficient background for the non-expert. Next, we articulate a number of practical steps and tools that can help ECRs to identify and enhance the policy relevance of their research, better understand the policy world in practice and identify a range of pathways to achieving impact. Finally, we draw on our personal experiences to highlight some of the key individual characteristics and values that are needed to operate more effectively at the interface of science, policy and practice. Our hope is that the information and tools provided here can help to empower ECRs to create their own pathways to impact that best suit their individual goals, circumstances, interests and strengths.
Recognizing and Appreciating the 2023 JGR: Biogeosciences Reviewers

Ben Bond‐Lamberty,Xiaojuan Feng,Deborah Huntzinger,Marguerite A. Xenopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024jg008197

2024-04-27

Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences

Abstract:Abstract Peer review is a crucial but time‐consuming and sometimes frustrating part of science. The Editors of JGR : Biogeosciences are deeply appreciative of, and sincerely thank, the many 2023 reviewers who donated their time and expertise in support of the journal.

environmental sciences,geosciences, multidisciplinary
Join the club

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-024-00613-2

IF: 34.5695

2024-05-09

Nature Reviews Chemistry

Abstract:Following the success of our current journal club collaborations, we would like to encourage more groups of early-career researchers to get involved.

chemistry, multidisciplinary
Peer Reviewer Contributions, Challenges, and Training

Rita H. Pickler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/nnr.0000000000000754

2024-08-28

Nursing Research

Abstract:Peer Review Week 2024 is September 23–27. Thus, I am taking this opportunity to thank the 2023 Nursing Research Reviewers (see the "2023 Reviewer List" in this issue), to encourage all of us to participate as scientific reviewers for this and other journals, and to highlight the need to provide peer reviewer training for emerging scientists. First, a note about Peer Review Week, a yearly, global, virtual event established to celebrate the vital contributions peer reviewers make to research quality ( Ioannidis et al., 2023 ). This year, Peer Review Week focuses on emphasizing the integration of technology into the work of peer review. This is an important topic, as the demands for greater transparency and efficiency in publication and the number of journals for which reviewers are asked to review have increased the challenges to dissemination of rigorous and ethically obtained scientific findings. Consequently, innovative approaches to peer review, with the objectives of streamlining the process and better meeting author and reviewer needs, are welcome. Especially interesting are new ways to automate administrative tasks so that peer reviewers and editors can focus on the most important aspect of the peer review process—scientific critique. Scientific rigor and transparency may also be improved with artificial intelligence (AI) innovations that allow reviewers to repeat statistical analyses as part of the review process. For more information about Peer Review Week, see https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/

nursing
Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Evgenios Agathokleous

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-021-01388-8

2021-09-16

Journal of Forestry Research

Abstract:Are you a student at a higher institution or an early-career researcher who is striving to understand and master the peer review process so to increase the odds of getting a paper published in the Journal of Forestry Research or another reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal? In this paper, a young, senior editor provides a handbook of the peer review process based on his decadal experience in scientific publishing. He covers major information you need to know during the entire process, from selecting journals to completing the proofing of your accepted paper. He introduces key points for consideration, such as avoidance of predatory journals, dubious research practices and ethics, interaction with peers, reviewers, and editors, and the pursuit of aretê. Finally, he points out some common statistical errors and misconceptions, such as P hacking and incorrect effect size inference. He hopes that this paper will enhance your understanding and knowledge of the peer-review process.

forestry
Peer reviewers for Climacteric in 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2024.2323329

2024-03-14

Climacteric

Abstract:Thank you to the following people who volunteered to provide the invaluable service of the peer reviewing of submitted manuscripts during 2023.

obstetrics & gynecology
Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Process

D Sculley,Jasper Snoek,Alex Wiltschko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.06246

2018-12-18

Abstract:Peer review is the foundation of scientific publication, and the task of reviewing has long been seen as a cornerstone of professional service. However, the massive growth in the field of machine learning has put this community benefit under stress, threatening both the sustainability of an effective review process and the overall progress of the field. In this position paper, we argue that a tragedy of the commons outcome may be avoided by emphasizing the professional aspects of this service. In particular, we propose a rubric to hold reviewers to an objective standard for review quality. In turn, we also propose that reviewers be given appropriate incentive. As one possible such incentive, we explore the idea of financial compensation on a per-review basis. We suggest reasonable funding models and thoughts on long term effects.

Computers and Society,Digital Libraries,Machine Learning

Growing early career researchers pathways through co-review

Including Early Career Researchers in Scientific Publishing

Celebrating and supporting early career researchers within underrepresented groups in materials science

How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers

Welcoming JNeurosci's Early Career Researcher Advisory Board

The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps

Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review

Towards inclusive funding practices for early career researchers

Expand your editorial knowledge with us

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Mentoring academic journal reviewers: brokering reviewing knowledge

How I am working as a reviewer?

Career Development of Early Career Researchers via Distributed Peer Mentoring Networks

How to Encourage Best Peer Reviewers: an Empiric Approach

An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers

Recognizing and Appreciating the 2023 JGR: Biogeosciences Reviewers

Join the club

Peer Reviewer Contributions, Challenges, and Training

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Peer reviewers for Climacteric in 2023

Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Process