<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Meghan.Forrest</id>
	<title>Peerspectives-Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Meghan.Forrest"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Special:Contributions/Meghan.Forrest"/>
	<updated>2026-04-22T19:39:48Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.39.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Adapting_Peerspectives&amp;diff=485</id>
		<title>Adapting Peerspectives</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Adapting_Peerspectives&amp;diff=485"/>
		<updated>2026-01-23T10:29:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Peerspectives is built as a modular course, allowing instructors and research groups to tailor the content to their available resources and time constraints. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While originally designed for the biomedical sciences, the course can be readily adapted for other disciplines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you’ve adapted Peerspectives, we’d love to hear from you. Please email '''peerspectives@charite.de''' to let us know.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=484</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=484"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T19:43:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop mentor orientation meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XwhSOM5XItbOE73guyYeYj4RlaVN_jyz/edit?usp=sharing&amp;amp;ouid=113143198447829549925&amp;amp;rtpof=true&amp;amp;sd=true here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshop mentors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Personnel]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Partnering with workshop mentors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Lectures&amp;diff=483</id>
		<title>Lectures</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Lectures&amp;diff=483"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T19:42:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Rationale&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives begins with a series of four lectures to provide an overview of the publishing system and editorial processes, and lay the theoretical foundation required to conduct high quality peer review. This knowledge will then be applied in the [[workshops]] under the guidance of a workshop mentor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Format&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lecture block of Peerspectives is structured into 4 lectures, with each session lasting 3 hours (including breaks). The 3-hour format provides enough time for instructors to introduce new topics, recap material from the previous session, and discuss take-home assignments with participants, in addition to allowing opportunities for group discussions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lecture structure is adaptable in (1) the number of sessions, and (2) the duration of each lecture. This flexibility enables instructors to tailor the course to different target audiences, time constraints and teaching preferences. Lecture topics can be grouped as needed to create sessions of different lengths, ensuring that the material fits the available time schedule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Lecture topics&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The content of the lectures is based on:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* First-hand experience of the course creators as authors, peer reviewers and journal editors&lt;br /&gt;
* Discussions with colleagues&lt;br /&gt;
* The BMJ Reviewer training materials&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Resources for reviewers, &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; (accessed 24 March 2025).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Experience from The BMJ&lt;br /&gt;
* Science Editors’ Handbook&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Travitz H. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; (accessed 24 March 2025).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Scientific publications, commentaries, and opinion pieces about peer review&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''The topics covered in each of the four lectures are outlined below.''' These topics can be adjusted, rearranged, or combined as needed, depending on lecturer availability or the instructor’s preferred teaching approach. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''Introduction to the roles of journals, editors, and peer reviewers''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BaY0cSeLbNpKS-JvRs9wHwYkVHCxo5m6SYP8LNyjjyI/edit?usp=sharing Complete slide deck]]&lt;br /&gt;
## Course overview&lt;br /&gt;
## Getting to know you&lt;br /&gt;
## Role of journals&lt;br /&gt;
## Role of editors&lt;br /&gt;
## Role of peer review(ers)&lt;br /&gt;
## Reliability and biases, review types, &amp;amp; improving quality of peer review&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''Peer review conduct and how to write a helpful, useful review''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1o_MsgIZuM0BFWOvpLxNyFigQhHnjlYEeGHwxLwTvCTQ/edit?usp=sharing Complete slide deck]] &lt;br /&gt;
## Sex, gender, &amp;amp; diversity considerations in peer review &lt;br /&gt;
## Lecture 1 wrap-up + review of take-home assignment #1&lt;br /&gt;
## Peer review conduct and writing tips&lt;br /&gt;
## Guidelines for peer review: style and approach&lt;br /&gt;
## Writing a good review&lt;br /&gt;
## More tips + recommendations for peer reviewing&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''Publish or perish? A cornucopia of contributions and credit, productivity,publication ethics, and open science''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-iQs99QbzHd1TkiGejdDZeaMpwX4OMXaBkVAvlAlUPs/edit?usp=sharing Complete slide deck]] &lt;br /&gt;
## Lecture 2 recap + review of take-home assignment #2&lt;br /&gt;
## Credit for contributions to research&lt;br /&gt;
## Measures of scientific productivity&lt;br /&gt;
## Predatory journals&lt;br /&gt;
## Ethical guidelines for peer review (COPE)&lt;br /&gt;
## Recap: Lecture 2 (continued)&lt;br /&gt;
## Open science&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''From theory to practice - Review procedure &amp;amp; walk-through''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MFvUfPMNbaMZuZ3wmbGyv6ni7ME7RBwBUiCN6bqr9Ns/edit?usp=sharing Complete slide deck]]&lt;br /&gt;
## From theory to practice: live walk through of a peer review&lt;br /&gt;
## Lecture 3 recap&lt;br /&gt;
## The peer review procedure: from start to finish&lt;br /&gt;
##* ''No recording available due to confidentiality agreement with journal partner''&lt;br /&gt;
## Final workshop preparations and assignment of workshop leaders&lt;br /&gt;
## Generative AI in peer review&lt;br /&gt;
## Last words&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Take-home assignments&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Take home assignments are introduced at the end of each lecture. These assignments have to goal of recapping a topic from the lecture or previewing an upcoming topic. These assignments are checked for completion. Students do not receive a grade for these assignments, but they are used as a basis for discussion in the following lecture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Take-home assignment #1 ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Assignment'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Imagine that you are submitting your paper to a journal.&lt;br /&gt;
'''Question 1''': During the submission process, the journal asks you to optionally provide names of suggested reviewers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pick and defend one of the following three arguments: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# You should provide names of possible reviewers who you know&lt;br /&gt;
# You should provide names of possible peer reviewers who you do not know&lt;br /&gt;
# You should not provide any names of possible peer reviewers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Question 2''': An author used AI tools to partially write their manuscript. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pick and defend one of the following three arguments: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# This should not be declared/no mention is needed&lt;br /&gt;
# This should be declared &lt;br /&gt;
# This should be declared and the AI tool should be listed as a co-author/contributor&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Required for submission'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-RVN9BSNOMh8tDprW72O3uEIRLSTy_45MtEJ2uWHyNE/edit this Google Form]. &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Take-home assignment #2 ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Assignment'''&lt;br /&gt;
|“Reviewing the reviewers”  Critique of three peer review reports of a real BMJ submission + reflection on your own pre-course assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
The course team asks the partner journal for a peer review report that have varying quality between reviewers. Pictures of each peer review report are inserted as questions on a Google Form, and students should respond to each peer review example. &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Required for submission'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14HM8PMdEzo5wVT4LeRpvOMBhkdhZPbVCqda7kptHljQ/edit this Google Form]. &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Take-home assignment #3 ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Assignment'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Find a paper (published after peer review or as a preprint) with open data and/or open code. &lt;br /&gt;
Write a short reflection (min 100 to max 300 words) based on the following prompts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Where was information about the shared data/code provided in the paper?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Where/how can the shared data/code be accessed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Was it clearly described in the manuscript what is contained in the shared data/code?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Were you able to access the shared data/code?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. From the perspective of a peer reviewer, for this paper, would these elements help you to better judge the quality of methods and results? If yes, how?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. What could improve your experience as a reviewer related to the code/data sharing in this paper?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Required for submission'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf8ufyF8l2ZriypJ6_ZAIHW1i6tsPAwEGy7NRC-r0aoZrSfJg/viewform?usp=publish-editor this Google Form]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Tips&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Before each lecture&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check to ensure that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The online lecture link was sent to all course participants&lt;br /&gt;
* The lecture link works correctly&lt;br /&gt;
* All links within the lecture slides and/or embedded materials such as videos are working &lt;br /&gt;
** If you using polling features within the lecture, ensure the feature is set up in Zoom or an alternative platform&lt;br /&gt;
* All assignments from the previous week were submitted &lt;br /&gt;
** If a participant has not completed an assignment, and it is mandatory, you can send them a private message during the lecture to remind them&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Send a reminder email the day before the lecture&lt;br /&gt;
** Depending on the workload of the participants, it can be helpful to send calendar invites with the lecture dates&lt;br /&gt;
* Plan to join the lecture a few minutes before the start to ensure that all intended features work properly (i.e., screen sharing, waiting room, recording)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Lectures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Adapting_Peerspectives&amp;diff=482</id>
		<title>Adapting Peerspectives</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Adapting_Peerspectives&amp;diff=482"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T19:38:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Peerspectives is built as a modular course, allowing instructors and research groups to tailor the content to their available resources and time constraints. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While originally designed for the biomedical sciences, the course can be readily adapted for other disciplines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you’ve adapted Peerspectives, we’d love to hear from you. Please email '''peerspectives@charite.de''' to let us know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Adaptations of the course ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Discipline&lt;br /&gt;
!Institution&lt;br /&gt;
!Description&lt;br /&gt;
!Link(s)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Adapting_Peerspectives&amp;diff=481</id>
		<title>Adapting Peerspectives</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Adapting_Peerspectives&amp;diff=481"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T19:11:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Peerspectives was built in a modular format. With this format, instructors or research groups that wish to conduct the course can customize the course with their given resources and time allowance. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives was also designed for the biomedical sciences, but can also be adapted for other disciplines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you’ve adapted Peerspectives, we’d love to hear from you. Please email '''peerspectives@charite.de''' to let us know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Adaptations of the course ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Discipline&lt;br /&gt;
!Institution&lt;br /&gt;
!Description&lt;br /&gt;
!Link(s)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=480</id>
		<title>MediaWiki:Sidebar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=480"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T19:04:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;*navigation&lt;br /&gt;
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Overview&lt;br /&gt;
**Peerspectives|About Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Course Structure&lt;br /&gt;
**Lectures|Lectures&lt;br /&gt;
**Workshops|Workshops&lt;br /&gt;
**Pre- and Post-Course Assignments|Pre- and post-course assignments&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Setting up the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Course set-up&lt;br /&gt;
**Timeline&lt;br /&gt;
**Platforms and tools|Platforms and tools&lt;br /&gt;
**Recommended personnel|Personnel&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with workshop mentors|Partnering with workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
**Application and Participant Selection | Participant Recruitment &amp;amp; Selection&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Journal partners&lt;br /&gt;
**Establishing contact with a journal partner|Establishing contact&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with a journal|&lt;br /&gt;
*5. Adaptions of the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Adapting Peerspectives|Adapting Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Appendix&lt;br /&gt;
**Talks|Talks&lt;br /&gt;
**Publications|Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Page Tools&lt;br /&gt;
** New Page|Create new page&lt;br /&gt;
** New Template|Create a Template&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:Categories|Show categories&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:AllPages|All Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** randompage-url|randompage&lt;br /&gt;
** Mediawiki:Sidebar|Edit Sidebar&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:SpecialPages|Special Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** helppage|help-mediawiki&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* SEARCH&lt;br /&gt;
* TOOLBOX&lt;br /&gt;
* LANGUAGES&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=479</id>
		<title>Talks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=479"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T18:56:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Date&lt;br /&gt;
!Title&lt;br /&gt;
!Event Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|January 28, 2026&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion: '''[https://thefebruaryjournal.org/index.php/tfj/announcement/view/12 Round Table. The (Un)Bearable Weight of Peer Review]''' &lt;br /&gt;
|'''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' was a panel discussant in this round table.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|January 20, 2026&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''How to peer-review the methods section of articles''' &lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' and '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' as part of [https://excelscior.uc.pt/love-methods-week-2026/ Love Methods Week 2026]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|January 12, 2026&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: [https://academicpublishingeurope.com/program/ '''&amp;quot;Mind the Gap: AI in Publishing&amp;quot; - A candid discussion around AI use in editorial processes''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop co-organized by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' as a pre-conference satellite event to the Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) conference&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 20, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/commitments/research-quality/events/2025/20250620-charite-open-science-day.html Peer Review in the Biomedical Sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for Open Science Day at Charité-Universitätsmedizin&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 10, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://epiresearch.org/annual-meeting/2026-meeting/2025-workshops/ Peerspectives on peer review at major biomedical journals: A crash course for early-career researchers]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz, Dr. Jess Rohmann''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2025 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Boston, MA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 01, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Berlin Science Week Panel Discussion'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion hosted by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' and was a joint event by the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research, the BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, and the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 18, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''Peerspectives on peer review: A crash course on peer review for major biomedical journals for students and early career researchers'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Tobias Kurth, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, Dr. Toivo Glatz''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2024 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Austin, Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 03, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterwgtennant_dont-miss-publishing-causal-inference-activity-7198255817509208064-Jh5k/ Publishing Causal Inference Methods in Applied Clinical Journals - Following the Yellow Brick Road]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the Turing [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/interest-groups/causal-inference CIIG Seminar] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 22,  2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ZbrkpM2uSlCi8XLc&amp;amp;v=OZSm8F6tbjo&amp;amp;feature=youtu.be Peer Review as a Vehicle to Explore the Scientific Publishing Landscape, Improve Quality, and Strengthen Methods Competencies]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk give by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the  [https://metrics.stanford.edu/ Stanford METRICS] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 23, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/en/commitments/research-quality/events/2024/20240123-sturop-workshop-os-fq.html Workshop''': Open Science and research quality - so what? Core ideas, techniques and examples to join in''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Noel Kronenberg, Till Adam, Dr. Jessica Rohmann,''' and '''Dr. Toivo Glatz'''. In this interactive workshop, students and early career researchers were introduced to concepts of research quality and open science/access.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''[https://play.ki.se/media/Jess+Rohmann+-+6+12+2022/0_m7bf2hk3 Improving quality of peer review reports and strengthening epidemiological methods competencies: perspectives from the Peerspectives program].'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the CausaLAB Methods Series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.bihealth.org/de/translation/innovationstreiber/quest-center/events/kurs/quest-seminar-on-responsible-research-2 Talk: '''Perspectives from Peerspectives: Peer review and biomedical editing training initiative for PhD Students''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' at the QUEST Seminar on Responsible Research&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 22, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''Peerspectives: Pe(e)rspectives on Peer-review'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jul. 08, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster''': [https://osf.io/dxzm5 Peerspectives: Peer-review training initiative for the biomedical sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for the Open X Conference of the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 21, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster: '''[https://osf.io/e5hgf Peerspectives: Hands-on peer-review training for PhD students in health data sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' for the Reward Equator Conference 2020 in Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=478</id>
		<title>Talks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=478"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T18:51:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Date&lt;br /&gt;
!Title&lt;br /&gt;
!Event Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|January 28, 2026&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion: '''[https://thefebruaryjournal.org/index.php/tfj/announcement/view/12 Round Table. The (Un)Bearable Weight of Peer Review]''' &lt;br /&gt;
|'''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' was a panel discussant in this round table.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|January 12, 2026&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: [https://academicpublishingeurope.com/program/ '''&amp;quot;Mind the Gap: AI in Publishing&amp;quot; - A candid discussion around AI use in editorial processes''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop co-organized by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' as a pre-conference satellite event to the Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) conference&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 20, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/commitments/research-quality/events/2025/20250620-charite-open-science-day.html Peer Review in the Biomedical Sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for Open Science Day at Charité-Universitätsmedizin&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 10, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://epiresearch.org/annual-meeting/2026-meeting/2025-workshops/ Peerspectives on peer review at major biomedical journals: A crash course for early-career researchers]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz, Dr. Jess Rohmann''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2025 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Boston, MA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 01, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Berlin Science Week Panel Discussion'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion hosted by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' and was a joint event by the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research, the BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, and the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 18, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''Peerspectives on peer review: A crash course on peer review for major biomedical journals for students and early career researchers'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Tobias Kurth, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, Dr. Toivo Glatz''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2024 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Austin, Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 03, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterwgtennant_dont-miss-publishing-causal-inference-activity-7198255817509208064-Jh5k/ Publishing Causal Inference Methods in Applied Clinical Journals - Following the Yellow Brick Road]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the Turing [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/interest-groups/causal-inference CIIG Seminar] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 22,  2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ZbrkpM2uSlCi8XLc&amp;amp;v=OZSm8F6tbjo&amp;amp;feature=youtu.be Peer Review as a Vehicle to Explore the Scientific Publishing Landscape, Improve Quality, and Strengthen Methods Competencies]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk give by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the  [https://metrics.stanford.edu/ Stanford METRICS] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 23, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/en/commitments/research-quality/events/2024/20240123-sturop-workshop-os-fq.html Workshop''': Open Science and research quality - so what? Core ideas, techniques and examples to join in''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Noel Kronenberg, Till Adam, Dr. Jessica Rohmann,''' and '''Dr. Toivo Glatz'''. In this interactive workshop, students and early career researchers were introduced to concepts of research quality and open science/access.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''[https://play.ki.se/media/Jess+Rohmann+-+6+12+2022/0_m7bf2hk3 Improving quality of peer review reports and strengthening epidemiological methods competencies: perspectives from the Peerspectives program].'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the CausaLAB Methods Series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.bihealth.org/de/translation/innovationstreiber/quest-center/events/kurs/quest-seminar-on-responsible-research-2 Talk: '''Perspectives from Peerspectives: Peer review and biomedical editing training initiative for PhD Students''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' at the QUEST Seminar on Responsible Research&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 22, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''Peerspectives: Pe(e)rspectives on Peer-review'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jul. 08, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster''': [https://osf.io/dxzm5 Peerspectives: Peer-review training initiative for the biomedical sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for the Open X Conference of the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 21, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster: '''[https://osf.io/e5hgf Peerspectives: Hands-on peer-review training for PhD students in health data sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' for the Reward Equator Conference 2020 in Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=477</id>
		<title>Talks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=477"/>
		<updated>2026-01-20T18:45:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Date&lt;br /&gt;
!Title&lt;br /&gt;
!Event Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|January 12, 2026&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: [https://academicpublishingeurope.com/program/ '''&amp;quot;Mind the Gap: AI in Publishing&amp;quot; - A candid discussion around AI use in editorial processes''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop co-organized by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' as a pre-conference satellite event to the Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) conference&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 20, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/commitments/research-quality/events/2025/20250620-charite-open-science-day.html Peer Review in the Biomedical Sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for Open Science Day at Charité-Universitätsmedizin&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 10, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://epiresearch.org/annual-meeting/2026-meeting/2025-workshops/ Peerspectives on peer review at major biomedical journals: A crash course for early-career researchers]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz, Dr. Jess Rohmann''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2025 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Boston, MA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 01, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Berlin Science Week Panel Discussion'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion hosted by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' and was a joint event by the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research, the BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, and the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 18, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''Peerspectives on peer review: A crash course on peer review for major biomedical journals for students and early career researchers'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Tobias Kurth, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, Dr. Toivo Glatz''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2024 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Austin, Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 03, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterwgtennant_dont-miss-publishing-causal-inference-activity-7198255817509208064-Jh5k/ Publishing Causal Inference Methods in Applied Clinical Journals - Following the Yellow Brick Road]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the Turing [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/interest-groups/causal-inference CIIG Seminar] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 22,  2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ZbrkpM2uSlCi8XLc&amp;amp;v=OZSm8F6tbjo&amp;amp;feature=youtu.be Peer Review as a Vehicle to Explore the Scientific Publishing Landscape, Improve Quality, and Strengthen Methods Competencies]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk give by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the  [https://metrics.stanford.edu/ Stanford METRICS] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 23, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/en/commitments/research-quality/events/2024/20240123-sturop-workshop-os-fq.html Workshop''': Open Science and research quality - so what? Core ideas, techniques and examples to join in''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Noel Kronenberg, Till Adam, Dr. Jessica Rohmann,''' and '''Dr. Toivo Glatz'''. In this interactive workshop, students and early career researchers were introduced to concepts of research quality and open science/access.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''[https://play.ki.se/media/Jess+Rohmann+-+6+12+2022/0_m7bf2hk3 Improving quality of peer review reports and strengthening epidemiological methods competencies: perspectives from the Peerspectives program].'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the CausaLAB Methods Series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.bihealth.org/de/translation/innovationstreiber/quest-center/events/kurs/quest-seminar-on-responsible-research-2 Talk: '''Perspectives from Peerspectives: Peer review and biomedical editing training initiative for PhD Students''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' at the QUEST Seminar on Responsible Research&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 22, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''Peerspectives: Pe(e)rspectives on Peer-review'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jul. 08, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster''': [https://osf.io/dxzm5 Peerspectives: Peer-review training initiative for the biomedical sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for the Open X Conference of the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 21, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster: '''[https://osf.io/e5hgf Peerspectives: Hands-on peer-review training for PhD students in health data sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' for the Reward Equator Conference 2020 in Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=476</id>
		<title>MediaWiki:Sidebar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=476"/>
		<updated>2026-01-12T08:36:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;*navigation&lt;br /&gt;
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Overview&lt;br /&gt;
**Peerspectives|About Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Course Structure&lt;br /&gt;
**Lectures|Lectures&lt;br /&gt;
**Workshops|Workshops&lt;br /&gt;
**Pre- and Post-Course Assignments|Pre- and post-course assignments&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Setting up the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Course set-up&lt;br /&gt;
**Timeline&lt;br /&gt;
**Platforms and tools|Platforms and tools&lt;br /&gt;
**Recommended personnel|Personnel&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with workshop mentors|Partnering with workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
**Application and Participant Selection | Participant Recruitment &amp;amp; Selection&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Journal partners&lt;br /&gt;
**Establishing contact with a journal partner|Establishing contact&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with a journal|&lt;br /&gt;
*5. Adaptions of the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Adapting Peerspectives &lt;br /&gt;
*6. Appendix&lt;br /&gt;
**Talks|Talks&lt;br /&gt;
**Publications|Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Page Tools&lt;br /&gt;
** New Page|Create new page&lt;br /&gt;
** New Template|Create a Template&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:Categories|Show categories&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:AllPages|All Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** randompage-url|randompage&lt;br /&gt;
** Mediawiki:Sidebar|Edit Sidebar&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:SpecialPages|Special Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** helppage|help-mediawiki&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* SEARCH&lt;br /&gt;
* TOOLBOX&lt;br /&gt;
* LANGUAGES&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_tools&amp;diff=475</id>
		<title>Platforms and tools</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_tools&amp;diff=475"/>
		<updated>2026-01-12T08:35:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!About this page&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This page outlines recommendations for the two required materials for the course: collaboration platforms, and platforms for online meetings.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
== Considerations ==&lt;br /&gt;
The most important aspect when selecting platforms for the course is to '''ensure that each selected platform meets the confidentiality requirements of the journal partner.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Required platforms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== '''&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Collaborative platform to provide comments on manuscripts&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;''' ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Paperhive (used for the original Peerspectives course)&lt;br /&gt;
* Google Drive&lt;br /&gt;
* DropBox Paper&lt;br /&gt;
* Sharepoint  &lt;br /&gt;
* ONLYOFFICE DocSpace&lt;br /&gt;
* Lumin PDF&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original Peerspectives course had a license with [https://paperhive.org/ Paperhive]. Paperhive is a secure platform that allows participants to add comments and highlights to a pdf document while prohibiting the download of the document. If your journal partner does not require the papers to be shared securely, or you are using publicly available articles such as pre-prints/published manuscripts, tools such as Google Drive can be a free alternative to Paperhive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Platform to host online meetings&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Zoom (used for the original Peerspectives course)&lt;br /&gt;
* Teams&lt;br /&gt;
* Google Meet &lt;br /&gt;
* Skype&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Platforms and tools]]&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops&amp;diff=474</id>
		<title>Workshops</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops&amp;diff=474"/>
		<updated>2026-01-12T08:35:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Rationale&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The workshop sessions provide hands-on training in peer review under realistic conditions with the guidance of an experienced mentor. By working together to generate peer reviews as a group, the participants are able to learn from the mentor as well as the other participants in the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Format&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;===&lt;br /&gt;
The workshop block of Peerspectives consists of 4 sessions supervised by a mentor, with each session lasting up to three hours. Workshop mentors have the freedom to decide the structure of the workshop that is most suitable for their group. However, we recommend providing [[Partnering with workshop mentors|a short training session for mentors]] to attend prior to the first workshop date.  &lt;br /&gt;
==Workshop groups==&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal workshop group consists of 5-6 participants and is led by one workshop mentor. This group size provides flexibility in case participants drop out, ensuring that the workload doesn't fall disproportionately on too few participants. However, it is possible to have as few as 4 participants in each workshop group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the final lecture, participants will be informed of and meet with their assigned workshop groups. Each group should use this time to select a workshop lead for each week. The workshop lead is responsible for compiling the main body of the review report and checking in on the other group members to contribute their part. If the number of participants in a workshop group exceeds the number of workshop weeks, some weeks will have two workshop leads. While the workshop lead is responsible for ensuring the review progresses, all students are accountable for contributing to the peer review draft reports before each workshop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When assigning students to workshop groups, consider the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Participants' career stages&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;====&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''diverse'' career stages together&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''similar'' career stages together&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*participants earliest in their career can learn from participants with more experience&lt;br /&gt;
*participants later in their career can develop experience teaching earlier career participants&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*participants start from a similar baseline, which could make it easier for the workshop mentor to tailor the content effectively&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Participants' skill sets&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;====&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''diverse'' skill sets together&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''similar'' skill sets together&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*Can provide a more holistic review&lt;br /&gt;
*Participants learn from different skill set perspectives&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*It's can be easier to ensure that manuscripts are relevant and of interest to the group&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Expectations and timelines==&lt;br /&gt;
The figure below outlines a potential timeline surrounding the workshops when partnering with a journal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the real-world nature of the workshops and the intention to review manuscripts currently under consideration at a journal partner, there can be delays when requesting manuscripts and assigning them to the mentors. It is therefore important to plan ahead, communicate efficiently and transparently, and maintain some flexibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Before the workshop===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Workshop timeline v2a.png|thumb|Coordination timeline surrounding the workshops. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The course administrator should contact the journal two weeks before the workshop date to remind the journal editor to assign a manuscript to the workshop mentor.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Note:&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; Since mentors likely receive parallel peer review requests unrelated to Peerspectives, it is good practice to make explicit which manuscript is intended to be used in the workshop. To prevent accidental acceptance of unrelated peer review requests we recommend that the journal partner communicates the assigned manuscripts, including the manuscript names or IDs, via email.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The journal editor will then send the manuscripts to the workshop mentors, who will forward them to the course administrator for distribution to participants. If a workshop mentor does not receive the assigned manuscript on time, the course administrator should follow up with the journal editor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once the course administrator receives the manuscripts from the workshop mentors, all manuscript materials – including supplementary content – should be uploaded to the [[Required materials|sharing platform]] by the course administrator. The course administrator should then notify all participants that the manuscript and supporting material  have been uploaded.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related email templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
*'''''Email:''' [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Workshops:_Manuscript_Upload_Notification_(Email) Manuscript Upload Notification]''&lt;br /&gt;
*'''''Email''': [[Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 week (Email)|Deadline reminder - 1 week]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*'''''Email''': [[Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 day (Email)|Deadline reminder - 1 day]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;In the week prior to the workshop date all group members are expected to read the manuscript, generate relevant comments, and develop a draft of the peer review. For each workshop, a different group member (the lead) will be in charge of keeping the group on track to ensure that a preliminary peer review report is ready for the workshop date. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Note:&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; The course administrator should monitor the sharing platform and monitor the draft document for activity in the week leading up to the review. If there is no activity three days before the workshop, then the group should be reminded. Although 1-2 participants are assigned as leaders for each workshop, everyone in the group should contribute to the review draft.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===During the workshop ===&lt;br /&gt;
The workshops last between 1-3 hours depending on the amount of work the participants have invested before the workshop and the difficulty of the paper. As the sessions progress, workshop length typically decreases as groups find their rhythm and work more efficiently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course administrator should be available during the workshop to assist with any issues related to online meeting room access and to address questions that may arise at the start of the session.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Post workshop ===&lt;br /&gt;
If additional work is required to complete the review after the workshop, the group and workshop mentor should develop a plan for finalizing the peer review report before the workshop ends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workshop mentor is ultimately responsible for checking the peer review report that had been finalized by the group. The completed report will then circulate it to the group for approval before being sent to the journal by the workshop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the workshop mentor is unable to submit the review within 4 days after the workshop (or by the deadline given by the journal editor), they must communicate this to the journal editor and the course administrator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''The submitted review should clearly acknowledge all contributors to the review report''' (i.e., all participants and the mentor). The contributions of the course’s mentees improve science, should be acknowledged, and deserve credit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Confidentiality and data protection==&lt;br /&gt;
Depending on the confidentiality of the document (i.e., unpublished manuscript, pre-print, published material, etc.) and the agreement with your journal partner, you may want to consider using a secure platform to facilitate this. Please refer to [[Platforms and tools]] for potential platform suggestions, as well as considerations to make when selecting a platform to distribute manuscripts.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Tips==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Facilitating the online meeting=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*When scheduling workshops, it is helpful to be flexible to accommodate the schedules of workshop mentors. However, encouraging groups to meet on a consistent day and time helps streamline scheduling. When multiple groups meet at different times, coordination can quickly become challenging.&lt;br /&gt;
*If all the groups are meeting at the same date/times, create one, recurring meeting, and use that for the entire semester. Within that meeting create breakout rooms for each group.&lt;br /&gt;
* If using an online meeting platform such as Zoom, make sure that screen-sharing is allowed for all before the start of the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Workshop Groups=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Either during the application process or early in the course, asking participants to identify their top five academic strengths or research focuses can help in planning group assignments.&lt;br /&gt;
*After the first and second workshops, check in with the mentors to gauge how the groups are interacting and to ensure that all participants are contributing to the group.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshops]]&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=473</id>
		<title>MediaWiki:Sidebar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=473"/>
		<updated>2026-01-12T08:32:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;*navigation&lt;br /&gt;
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Overview&lt;br /&gt;
**Peerspectives|About Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Course Structure&lt;br /&gt;
**Lectures|Lectures&lt;br /&gt;
**Workshops|Workshops&lt;br /&gt;
**Pre- and Post-Course Assignments|Pre- and post-course assignments&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Setting up the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Course set-up&lt;br /&gt;
**Timeline&lt;br /&gt;
**Platforms and tools|Platforms and tools&lt;br /&gt;
**Recommended personnel|Personnel&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with workshop mentors|Partnering with workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
**Application and Participant Selection | Participant Recruitment &amp;amp; Selection&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Journal partners&lt;br /&gt;
**Establishing contact with a journal partner|Establishing contact&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with a journal|&lt;br /&gt;
**First meeting with the journal partner|First meeting&lt;br /&gt;
*5. Adaptions of the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Adapting Peerspectives &lt;br /&gt;
*6. Appendix&lt;br /&gt;
**Talks|Talks&lt;br /&gt;
**Publications|Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Page Tools&lt;br /&gt;
** New Page|Create new page&lt;br /&gt;
** New Template|Create a Template&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:Categories|Show categories&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:AllPages|All Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** randompage-url|randompage&lt;br /&gt;
** Mediawiki:Sidebar|Edit Sidebar&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:SpecialPages|Special Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** helppage|help-mediawiki&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* SEARCH&lt;br /&gt;
* TOOLBOX&lt;br /&gt;
* LANGUAGES&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Footer&amp;diff=472</id>
		<title>MediaWiki:Footer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Footer&amp;diff=472"/>
		<updated>2025-12-03T13:56:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created page with &amp;quot;This website’s content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), permitting reuse and adaptation with proper attribution. If content from this website is used, please cite this Wiki using the information provided on this page.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This website’s content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), permitting reuse and adaptation with proper attribution. If content from this website is used, please cite this Wiki using the information provided on this page.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives&amp;diff=471</id>
		<title>Peerspectives</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives&amp;diff=471"/>
		<updated>2025-11-27T17:25:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: /* Take-home assignments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable mw-collapsible&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;About this Wiki&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This Wiki was designed and intended to provide a template for educators to integrate Peerspectives into their own academic program. In addition to details regarding the purpose, learning objectives, and structure of the course, we also provide the following:&lt;br /&gt;
* Modifiable lecture slides&lt;br /&gt;
*Email templates used to run the course&lt;br /&gt;
*Suggestions for adapting the course to other disciplines or career stages&lt;br /&gt;
*Lessons learned from previous iterations of the course, tested via trial-and-error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please use the left side panel for navigation, in addition to the search bar at the top of this page.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Peerspectives logo.png|alt=Logo for the Peerspectives peer-review training initiative|center|500x500px]]&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Overview&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
=== What is Peerspectives? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives is a highly interactive and engaging '''course''' that provides researchers with modern training and insights into the '''structure, purpose, and conduct of the scholarly peer review and editing processes at scientific journals.''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How did Peerspectives start? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives was originally conceptualized as a semester-long course that offered as an elective course in the structured PhD program in Health Data Sciences at the Charité. Soon after, we expanded our content to suit a wider audience of early career biomedical scientists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This course can be hosted entirely online and was created with flexibility in mind, making it adaptable to various resource levels, time frames, career stages, and scientific disciplines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Why should you run Peerspectives? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific journals publish scholarly articles and provide an important platform for transparent presentation, exchange, and discussion of scientific findings and developments. Peer review plays a fundamental role in ensuring integrity and quality in scientific processes. While the scientific peer review process is not without flaws, learning how to conduct high-quality peer review is an invaluable skill for early career researchers (ECRs). In sharp contrast to the enormous emphasis on scientific publications in cumulative publication-based dissertations, peer review training is rarely, if ever, included in graduate training curricula. '''Peerspectives seeks to address this training gap.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives introduces participants to the modern scientific publishing landscape and the actors within this system. The course allows participants to refine their skills in drafting peer review reports and learn about transparency, reproducibility, and the use of modern methods. Additionally, it simultaneously serves to increase awareness of critical systemic issues including biases, favoritism, and scientific misconduct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives strives to equip early-stage researchers with vital career-related skills and provide them with the chance to reflect on quality control and the role of the professional publishing business in science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Target audience ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives originated as a training course for doctoral students in the domains of biomedical sciences and population health with prior epidemiology or biostatistics training. Over time, the course expanded to welcome other early career researchers, such as advanced master’s students, and early-stage postdocs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course is '''flexible''' and can be adapted to different career stages and scientific disciplines. However, for successful implementation, '''it is important to customize the content and structure to fit the specific needs of the participants'''. A generic, one-size-fits-all approach may be impractical and could affect the course’s overall quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Course objectives ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Explain the role of scientific journals, editors, and peer reviewers as parts of the scientific process in the field of biomedical sciences&lt;br /&gt;
* Promote clear communication and efficiency in the peer review process&lt;br /&gt;
* Stimulate critical thinking and constructive, scientific critique&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage transparency and adherence to ethical and methodological guidelines&lt;br /&gt;
* Introduce and explore concepts around open science, open-access publishing, and open peer review&lt;br /&gt;
* Participants will develop an understanding of what peer reviewers and editors are looking for in scientific writing and improve the quality of participants’ future submission&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Course Structure&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
Our complete semester-long hybrid approach to training combines a series of interactive lectures with reflection assignments to promote fruitful group discussions. Once the lecture series has concluded, the course moves onto a series of peer review workshops.  During these workshops, the participants – under the guidance of an experienced editorial mentor –  collaborate in small groups to peer review “live” manuscripts that are currently under consideration at a partnering scientific journal. The Peerspectives approach uniquely allows participants to engage in collaborative peer review in a mentored environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Component 1: [[Lectures]] ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives opens with a series of interactive lectures aimed at equipping participants with essential knowledge of editorial processes and the development of scientific peer review. The lecture component of the course spans over four sessions, with each lecture lasting three hours. However, the number of sessions, their duration, and the topics covered can be modified to align with the target audience, lecturer availability, and scheduling needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Lectures#Take-home_assignments Take-home assignments] ====&lt;br /&gt;
Between lectures, participants complete small exercises designed to reinforce concepts from the previous session and engage in preparatory brainstorming for the next lecture’s topics. These take-home assignments are revisited in the following lecture and serve as a foundation for group discussions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Component 2: [[Workshops]]===&lt;br /&gt;
The second component of Peerspectives consists of workshops, during which participants collaboratively draft and finalize a peer review report under the supervision of a mentor with peer review and (ideally) editorial experience. Workshops are designed to be participant-led, with the role of workshop leader rotating between participants each week. While the mentor provides guidance and can steer the discussion if needed, participants hold the responsibility for reading the manuscript and drafting a review prior to the workshop.  Participants are expected to shape the peer review (1) in line with their individual scientific expertise, and (2) to apply the peer review knowledge developed in the lectures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Component 3: Reflection ===&lt;br /&gt;
To maximise learning outcomes, we recommend some kind of reflection activity. This can be in the form of a self-assessment of skills, de-briefing with the mentor after the last workshop, or listening in to an editorial meeting or requesting a meeting with the handling editor to inquire about the submitted peer review reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Component 4: [[Pre- and Post-Course Assignments]]===&lt;br /&gt;
These assignments serve to gauge the peer review experience and knowledge of participants before and after formal instruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives&amp;diff=470</id>
		<title>Peerspectives</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives&amp;diff=470"/>
		<updated>2025-11-27T17:25:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: /* Take-home assignments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable mw-collapsible&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;About this Wiki&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This Wiki was designed and intended to provide a template for educators to integrate Peerspectives into their own academic program. In addition to details regarding the purpose, learning objectives, and structure of the course, we also provide the following:&lt;br /&gt;
* Modifiable lecture slides&lt;br /&gt;
*Email templates used to run the course&lt;br /&gt;
*Suggestions for adapting the course to other disciplines or career stages&lt;br /&gt;
*Lessons learned from previous iterations of the course, tested via trial-and-error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please use the left side panel for navigation, in addition to the search bar at the top of this page.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Peerspectives logo.png|alt=Logo for the Peerspectives peer-review training initiative|center|500x500px]]&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Overview&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
=== What is Peerspectives? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives is a highly interactive and engaging '''course''' that provides researchers with modern training and insights into the '''structure, purpose, and conduct of the scholarly peer review and editing processes at scientific journals.''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How did Peerspectives start? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives was originally conceptualized as a semester-long course that offered as an elective course in the structured PhD program in Health Data Sciences at the Charité. Soon after, we expanded our content to suit a wider audience of early career biomedical scientists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This course can be hosted entirely online and was created with flexibility in mind, making it adaptable to various resource levels, time frames, career stages, and scientific disciplines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Why should you run Peerspectives? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific journals publish scholarly articles and provide an important platform for transparent presentation, exchange, and discussion of scientific findings and developments. Peer review plays a fundamental role in ensuring integrity and quality in scientific processes. While the scientific peer review process is not without flaws, learning how to conduct high-quality peer review is an invaluable skill for early career researchers (ECRs). In sharp contrast to the enormous emphasis on scientific publications in cumulative publication-based dissertations, peer review training is rarely, if ever, included in graduate training curricula. '''Peerspectives seeks to address this training gap.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives introduces participants to the modern scientific publishing landscape and the actors within this system. The course allows participants to refine their skills in drafting peer review reports and learn about transparency, reproducibility, and the use of modern methods. Additionally, it simultaneously serves to increase awareness of critical systemic issues including biases, favoritism, and scientific misconduct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives strives to equip early-stage researchers with vital career-related skills and provide them with the chance to reflect on quality control and the role of the professional publishing business in science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Target audience ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives originated as a training course for doctoral students in the domains of biomedical sciences and population health with prior epidemiology or biostatistics training. Over time, the course expanded to welcome other early career researchers, such as advanced master’s students, and early-stage postdocs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course is '''flexible''' and can be adapted to different career stages and scientific disciplines. However, for successful implementation, '''it is important to customize the content and structure to fit the specific needs of the participants'''. A generic, one-size-fits-all approach may be impractical and could affect the course’s overall quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Course objectives ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Explain the role of scientific journals, editors, and peer reviewers as parts of the scientific process in the field of biomedical sciences&lt;br /&gt;
* Promote clear communication and efficiency in the peer review process&lt;br /&gt;
* Stimulate critical thinking and constructive, scientific critique&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage transparency and adherence to ethical and methodological guidelines&lt;br /&gt;
* Introduce and explore concepts around open science, open-access publishing, and open peer review&lt;br /&gt;
* Participants will develop an understanding of what peer reviewers and editors are looking for in scientific writing and improve the quality of participants’ future submission&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Course Structure&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
Our complete semester-long hybrid approach to training combines a series of interactive lectures with reflection assignments to promote fruitful group discussions. Once the lecture series has concluded, the course moves onto a series of peer review workshops.  During these workshops, the participants – under the guidance of an experienced editorial mentor –  collaborate in small groups to peer review “live” manuscripts that are currently under consideration at a partnering scientific journal. The Peerspectives approach uniquely allows participants to engage in collaborative peer review in a mentored environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Component 1: [[Lectures]] ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives opens with a series of interactive lectures aimed at equipping participants with essential knowledge of editorial processes and the development of scientific peer review. The lecture component of the course spans over four sessions, with each lecture lasting three hours. However, the number of sessions, their duration, and the topics covered can be modified to align with the target audience, lecturer availability, and scheduling needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== [[Take-home assignments]] ====&lt;br /&gt;
Between lectures, participants complete small exercises designed to reinforce concepts from the previous session and engage in preparatory brainstorming for the next lecture’s topics. These take-home assignments are revisited in the following lecture and serve as a foundation for group discussions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Component 2: [[Workshops]]===&lt;br /&gt;
The second component of Peerspectives consists of workshops, during which participants collaboratively draft and finalize a peer review report under the supervision of a mentor with peer review and (ideally) editorial experience. Workshops are designed to be participant-led, with the role of workshop leader rotating between participants each week. While the mentor provides guidance and can steer the discussion if needed, participants hold the responsibility for reading the manuscript and drafting a review prior to the workshop.  Participants are expected to shape the peer review (1) in line with their individual scientific expertise, and (2) to apply the peer review knowledge developed in the lectures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Component 3: Reflection ===&lt;br /&gt;
To maximise learning outcomes, we recommend some kind of reflection activity. This can be in the form of a self-assessment of skills, de-briefing with the mentor after the last workshop, or listening in to an editorial meeting or requesting a meeting with the handling editor to inquire about the submitted peer review reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Component 4: [[Pre- and Post-Course Assignments]]===&lt;br /&gt;
These assignments serve to gauge the peer review experience and knowledge of participants before and after formal instruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Lectures&amp;diff=469</id>
		<title>Lectures</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Lectures&amp;diff=469"/>
		<updated>2025-11-27T17:24:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Rationale&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives begins with a series of four lectures to provide an overview of the publishing system and editorial processes, and lay the theoretical foundation required to conduct high quality peer review. This knowledge will then be applied in the [[workshops]] under the guidance of a workshop mentor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Format&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lecture block of Peerspectives is structured into 4 lectures, with each session lasting 3 hours (including breaks). The 3-hour format provides enough time for instructors to introduce new topics, recap material from the previous session, and discuss take-home assignments with participants, in addition to allowing opportunities for group discussions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lecture structure is adaptable in (1) the number of sessions, and (2) the duration of each lecture. This flexibility enables instructors to tailor the course to different target audiences, time constraints and teaching preferences. Lecture topics can be grouped as needed to create sessions of different lengths, ensuring that the material fits the available time schedule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Lecture topics&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The content of the lectures is based on:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* First-hand experience of the course creators as authors, peer reviewers and journal editors&lt;br /&gt;
* Discussions with colleagues&lt;br /&gt;
* The BMJ Reviewer training materials&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Resources for reviewers, &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; (accessed 24 March 2025).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Experience from The BMJ&lt;br /&gt;
* Science Editors’ Handbook&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Travitz H. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; (accessed 24 March 2025).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Scientific publications, commentaries, and opinion pieces about peer review&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''The topics covered in each of the four lectures are outlined below.''' These topics can be adjusted, rearranged, or combined as needed, depending on lecturer availability or the instructor’s preferred teaching approach. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''Introduction to the roles of journals, editors, and peer reviewers''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yr8Tj54aV80eR2SSWvUC0ZfsaBUuE-VbykaKzkDPTwQ/edit?slide=id.p1#slide=id.p1 Complete slide deck]]&lt;br /&gt;
## Course overview&lt;br /&gt;
## Getting to know you&lt;br /&gt;
## Role of journals&lt;br /&gt;
## Role of editors&lt;br /&gt;
## Role of peer review(ers)&lt;br /&gt;
## Reliability and biases, review types, &amp;amp; improving quality of peer review&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''Peer review conduct and how to write a helpful, useful review''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iWDghphokCmEP6iDa7LMDovp-guk5n91or63-3uMang/edit?slide=id.g3150b346f4e_0_222#slide=id.g3150b346f4e_0_222 Complete slide deck]] &lt;br /&gt;
## Sex, gender, &amp;amp; diversity considerations in peer review &lt;br /&gt;
## Lecture 1 wrap-up + review of take-home assignment #1&lt;br /&gt;
## Peer review conduct and writing tips&lt;br /&gt;
## Guidelines for peer review: style and approach&lt;br /&gt;
## Writing a good review&lt;br /&gt;
## More tips + recommendations for peer reviewing&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''Publish or perish? A cornucopia of contributions and credit, productivity,publication ethics, and open science''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Dzof_pUTL0pHpxz9nsTH-9Ggfbxk8oHr6jlV69MpQUc/edit?slide=id.g3120ac29dfe_0_0#slide=id.g3120ac29dfe_0_0 Complete slide deck]] &lt;br /&gt;
## Lecture 2 recap + review of take-home assignment #2&lt;br /&gt;
## Credit for contributions to research&lt;br /&gt;
## Measures of scientific productivity&lt;br /&gt;
## Predatory journals&lt;br /&gt;
## Ethical guidelines for peer review (COPE)&lt;br /&gt;
## Recap: Lecture 2 (continued)&lt;br /&gt;
## Open science&lt;br /&gt;
# Lecture title: '''From theory to practice - Review procedure &amp;amp; walk-through''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kRrsHnfgjueKeDUIL4JlLnPXESufi4zbKZowbAM9cDQ/edit?usp=sharing Complete slide deck]]&lt;br /&gt;
## From theory to practice: live walk through of a peer review&lt;br /&gt;
## Lecture 3 recap&lt;br /&gt;
## The peer review procedure: from start to finish&lt;br /&gt;
##* ''No recording available due to confidentiality agreement with journal partner''&lt;br /&gt;
## Final workshop preparations and assignment of workshop leaders&lt;br /&gt;
## Generative AI in peer review&lt;br /&gt;
## Last words&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Take-home assignments&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Take home assignments are introduced at the end of each lecture. These assignments have to goal of recapping a topic from the lecture or previewing an upcoming topic. These assignments are checked for completion. Students do not receive a grade for these assignments, but they are used as a basis for discussion in the following lecture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Take-home assignment #1 ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Assignment'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Imagine that you are submitting your paper to a journal.&lt;br /&gt;
'''Question 1''': During the submission process, the journal asks you to optionally provide names of suggested reviewers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pick and defend one of the following three arguments: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# You should provide names of possible reviewers who you know&lt;br /&gt;
# You should provide names of possible peer reviewers who you do not know&lt;br /&gt;
# You should not provide any names of possible peer reviewers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Question 2''': An author used AI tools to partially write their manuscript. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pick and defend one of the following three arguments: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# This should not be declared/no mention is needed&lt;br /&gt;
# This should be declared &lt;br /&gt;
# This should be declared and the AI tool should be listed as a co-author/contributor&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Required for submission'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-RVN9BSNOMh8tDprW72O3uEIRLSTy_45MtEJ2uWHyNE/edit this Google Form]. &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Take-home assignment #2 ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Assignment'''&lt;br /&gt;
|“Reviewing the reviewers”  Critique of three peer review reports of a real BMJ submission + reflection on your own pre-course assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
The course team asks the partner journal for a peer review report that have varying quality between reviewers. Pictures of each peer review report are inserted as questions on a Google Form, and students should respond to each peer review example. &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Required for submission'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14HM8PMdEzo5wVT4LeRpvOMBhkdhZPbVCqda7kptHljQ/edit this Google Form]. &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Take-home assignment #3 ===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Assignment'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Find a paper (published after peer review or as a preprint) with open data and/or open code. &lt;br /&gt;
Write a short reflection (min 100 to max 300 words) based on the following prompts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Where was information about the shared data/code provided in the paper?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Where/how can the shared data/code be accessed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Was it clearly described in the manuscript what is contained in the shared data/code?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Were you able to access the shared data/code?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. From the perspective of a peer reviewer, for this paper, would these elements help you to better judge the quality of methods and results? If yes, how?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. What could improve your experience as a reviewer related to the code/data sharing in this paper?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Required for submission'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf8ufyF8l2ZriypJ6_ZAIHW1i6tsPAwEGy7NRC-r0aoZrSfJg/viewform?usp=publish-editor this Google Form]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Tips&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Before each lecture&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check to ensure that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The online lecture link was sent to all course participants&lt;br /&gt;
* The lecture link works correctly&lt;br /&gt;
* All links within the lecture slides and/or embedded materials such as videos are working &lt;br /&gt;
** If you using polling features within the lecture, ensure the feature is set up in Zoom or an alternative platform&lt;br /&gt;
* All assignments from the previous week were submitted &lt;br /&gt;
** If a participant has not completed an assignment, and it is mandatory, you can send them a private message during the lecture to remind them&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Send a reminder email the day before the lecture&lt;br /&gt;
** Depending on the workload of the participants, it can be helpful to send calendar invites with the lecture dates&lt;br /&gt;
* Plan to join the lecture a few minutes before the start to ensure that all intended features work properly (i.e., screen sharing, waiting room, recording)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Lectures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=468</id>
		<title>Talks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=468"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T15:16:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Date&lt;br /&gt;
!Title&lt;br /&gt;
!Event Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 20, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/commitments/research-quality/events/2025/20250620-charite-open-science-day.html Peer Review in the Biomedical Sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for Open Science Day at Charité-Universitätsmedizin&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 10, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''[https://epiresearch.org/annual-meeting/2026-meeting/2025-workshops/ Peerspectives on peer review at major biomedical journals: A crash course for early-career researchers]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz, Dr. Jess Rohmann''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2025 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Boston, MA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 01, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Berlin Science Week Panel Discussion'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion hosted by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' and was a joint event by the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research, the BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, and the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 18, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop: '''Peerspectives on peer review: A crash course on peer review for major biomedical journals for students and early career researchers'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Tobias Kurth, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, Dr. Toivo Glatz''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2024 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Austin, Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 03, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterwgtennant_dont-miss-publishing-causal-inference-activity-7198255817509208064-Jh5k/ Publishing Causal Inference Methods in Applied Clinical Journals - Following the Yellow Brick Road]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the Turing [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/interest-groups/causal-inference CIIG Seminar] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 22,  2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk''': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ZbrkpM2uSlCi8XLc&amp;amp;v=OZSm8F6tbjo&amp;amp;feature=youtu.be Peer Review as a Vehicle to Explore the Scientific Publishing Landscape, Improve Quality, and Strengthen Methods Competencies]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk give by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the  [https://metrics.stanford.edu/ Stanford METRICS] series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 23, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/en/commitments/research-quality/events/2024/20240123-sturop-workshop-os-fq.html Workshop''': Open Science and research quality - so what? Core ideas, techniques and examples to join in''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Noel Kronenberg, Till Adam, Dr. Jessica Rohmann,''' and '''Dr. Toivo Glatz'''. In this interactive workshop, students and early career researchers were introduced to concepts of research quality and open science/access.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''[https://play.ki.se/media/Jess+Rohmann+-+6+12+2022/0_m7bf2hk3 Improving quality of peer review reports and strengthening epidemiological methods competencies: perspectives from the Peerspectives program].'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' at the CausaLAB Methods Series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://www.bihealth.org/de/translation/innovationstreiber/quest-center/events/kurs/quest-seminar-on-responsible-research-2 Talk: '''Perspectives from Peerspectives: Peer review and biomedical editing training initiative for PhD Students''']&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' at the QUEST Seminar on Responsible Research&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 22, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk: '''Peerspectives: Pe(e)rspectives on Peer-review'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jul. 08, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster''': [https://osf.io/dxzm5 Peerspectives: Peer-review training initiative for the biomedical sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for the Open X Conference of the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 21, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster: '''[https://osf.io/e5hgf Peerspectives: Hands-on peer-review training for PhD students in health data sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' for the Reward Equator Conference 2020 in Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=467</id>
		<title>Talks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=467"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T15:09:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Date&lt;br /&gt;
!Title&lt;br /&gt;
!Event Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 20, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/commitments/research-quality/events/2025/20250620-charite-open-science-day.html Peer Review in the Biomedical Sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz''' for Open Science Day at Charité-Universitätsmedizin&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 10, 2025&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://epiresearch.org/annual-meeting/2026-meeting/2025-workshops/ Peerspectives on peer review at major biomedical journals: A crash course for early-career researchers]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Toivo Glatz, Dr. Jess Rohmann''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2025 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Boston, MA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 01, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Berlin Science Week Panel Discussion'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Panel discussion hosted by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' and was a joint event by the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research, the BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, and the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 18, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Peerspectives on peer review: A crash course on peer review for major biomedical journals for students and early career researchers'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop given by '''Dr. Tobias Kurth, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, Dr. Toivo Glatz''', and '''Dr. Timothy Feeney''' at the 2024 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Austin, Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 03, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterwgtennant_dont-miss-publishing-causal-inference-activity-7198255817509208064-Jh5k/ Publishing Causal Inference Methods in Applied Clinical Journals - Following the Yellow Brick Road]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' as part of the Turing CIIG Seminar series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 22,  2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://metrics.stanford.edu/metrics-international-forum Peer Review as a Vehicle to Explore the Scientific Publishing Landscape, Improve Quality, and Strengthen Methods Competencies]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk give by '''Dr. Jess Rohmann''' as part of the Stanford METRICS series&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 23, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://www.berlin-university-alliance.de/en/commitments/research-quality/events/2024/20240123-sturop-workshop-os-fq.html Workshop: Open Science and research quality - so what? Core ideas, techniques and examples to join in]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|In this interactive workshop, students and early career researchers were introduced to concepts of research quality and open science/access.&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop by Noel Kronenberg, Till Adam, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, and Dr. Toivo Glatz.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Improving quality of peer review reports and strengthening epidemiological methods competencies: perspectives from the Peerspectives program.'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk by Jess Rohmann at CausaLAB Methods Series&lt;br /&gt;
[https://play.ki.se/media/Jess+Rohmann+-+6+12+2022/0_m7bf2hk3 Recording]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 6, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://www.bihealth.org/de/translation/innovationstreiber/quest-center/events/kurs/quest-seminar-on-responsible-research-2 Perspectives from Peerspectives: Peer review and biomedical editing training initiative for PhD Students]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk by Dr. Toivo Glatz at the QUEST Seminar on Responsible Research&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 22, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Peerspectives: Pe(e)rspectives on Peer-review'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Talk given by Jess Rohmann&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Jul. 08, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://osf.io/dxzm5 Peerspectives: Peer-review training initiative for the biomedical sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by Dr. Toivo Glatz for the Open X Conference of the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feb. 21, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|'''[https://osf.io/e5hgf Peerspectives: Hands-on peer-review training for PhD students in health data sciences]'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Poster by Jess Rohmann for the Reward Equator Conference 2020 in Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives&amp;diff=466</id>
		<title>Peerspectives</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives&amp;diff=466"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T14:23:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable mw-collapsible&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;About this Wiki&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This Wiki was designed and intended to provide a template for educators to integrate Peerspectives into their own academic program. In addition to details regarding the purpose, learning objectives, and structure of the course, we also provide the following:&lt;br /&gt;
* Modifiable lecture slides&lt;br /&gt;
*Email templates used to run the course&lt;br /&gt;
*Suggestions for adapting the course to other disciplines or career stages&lt;br /&gt;
*Lessons learned from previous iterations of the course, tested via trial-and-error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please use the left side panel for navigation, in addition to the search bar at the top of this page.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Peerspectives logo.png|alt=Logo for the Peerspectives peer-review training initiative|center|500x500px]]&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Overview&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
=== What is Peerspectives? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives is a highly interactive and engaging '''course''' that provides researchers with modern training and insights into the '''structure, purpose, and conduct of the scholarly peer review and editing processes at scientific journals.''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How did Peerspectives start? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives was originally conceptualized as a semester-long course that offered as an elective course in the structured PhD program in Health Data Sciences at the Charité. Soon after, we expanded our content to suit a wider audience of early career biomedical scientists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This course can be hosted entirely online and was created with flexibility in mind, making it adaptable to various resource levels, time frames, career stages, and scientific disciplines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Why should you run Peerspectives? ===&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific journals publish scholarly articles and provide an important platform for transparent presentation, exchange, and discussion of scientific findings and developments. Peer review plays a fundamental role in ensuring integrity and quality in scientific processes. While the scientific peer review process is not without flaws, learning how to conduct high-quality peer review is an invaluable skill for early career researchers (ECRs). In sharp contrast to the enormous emphasis on scientific publications in cumulative publication-based dissertations, peer review training is rarely, if ever, included in graduate training curricula. '''Peerspectives seeks to address this training gap.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives introduces participants to the modern scientific publishing landscape and the actors within this system. The course allows participants to refine their skills in drafting peer review reports and learn about transparency, reproducibility, and the use of modern methods. Additionally, it simultaneously serves to increase awareness of critical systemic issues including biases, favoritism, and scientific misconduct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives strives to equip early-stage researchers with vital career-related skills and provide them with the chance to reflect on quality control and the role of the professional publishing business in science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Target audience ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives originated as a training course for doctoral students in the domains of biomedical sciences and population health with prior epidemiology or biostatistics training. Over time, the course expanded to welcome other early career researchers, such as advanced master’s students, and early-stage postdocs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course is '''flexible''' and can be adapted to different career stages and scientific disciplines. However, for successful implementation, '''it is important to customize the content and structure to fit the specific needs of the participants'''. A generic, one-size-fits-all approach may be impractical and could affect the course’s overall quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Course objectives ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Explain the role of scientific journals, editors, and peer reviewers as parts of the scientific process in the field of biomedical sciences&lt;br /&gt;
* Promote clear communication and efficiency in the peer review process&lt;br /&gt;
* Stimulate critical thinking and constructive, scientific critique&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage transparency and adherence to ethical and methodological guidelines&lt;br /&gt;
* Introduce and explore concepts around open science, open-access publishing, and open peer review&lt;br /&gt;
* Participants will develop an understanding of what peer reviewers and editors are looking for in scientific writing and improve the quality of participants’ future submission&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Course Structure&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
Our complete semester-long hybrid approach to training combines a series of interactive lectures with reflection assignments to promote fruitful group discussions. Once the lecture series has concluded, the course moves onto a series of peer review workshops.  During these workshops, the participants – under the guidance of an experienced editorial mentor –  collaborate in small groups to peer review “live” manuscripts that are currently under consideration at a partnering scientific journal. The Peerspectives approach uniquely allows participants to engage in collaborative peer review in a mentored environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Component 1: [[Lectures]] ===&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives opens with a series of interactive lectures aimed at equipping participants with essential knowledge of editorial processes and the development of scientific peer review. The lecture component of the course spans over four sessions, with each lecture lasting three hours. However, the number of sessions, their duration, and the topics covered can be modified to align with the target audience, lecturer availability, and scheduling needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Take-home assignments ====&lt;br /&gt;
Between lectures, participants complete small exercises designed to reinforce concepts from the previous session and engage in preparatory brainstorming for the next lecture’s topics. These take-home assignments are revisited in the following lecture and serve as a foundation for group discussions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Component 2: [[Workshops]]===&lt;br /&gt;
The second component of Peerspectives consists of workshops, during which participants collaboratively draft and finalize a peer review report under the supervision of a mentor with peer review and (ideally) editorial experience. Workshops are designed to be participant-led, with the role of workshop leader rotating between participants each week. While the mentor provides guidance and can steer the discussion if needed, participants hold the responsibility for reading the manuscript and drafting a review prior to the workshop.  Participants are expected to shape the peer review (1) in line with their individual scientific expertise, and (2) to apply the peer review knowledge developed in the lectures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Component 3: Reflection ===&lt;br /&gt;
To maximise learning outcomes, we recommend some kind of reflection activity. This can be in the form of a self-assessment of skills, de-briefing with the mentor after the last workshop, or listening in to an editorial meeting or requesting a meeting with the handling editor to inquire about the submitted peer review reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Component 4: [[Pre- and Post-Course Assignments]]===&lt;br /&gt;
These assignments serve to gauge the peer review experience and knowledge of participants before and after formal instruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=465</id>
		<title>MediaWiki:Sidebar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=465"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:52:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;*navigation&lt;br /&gt;
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Overview&lt;br /&gt;
**Peerspectives|About Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Course Structure&lt;br /&gt;
**Lectures|Lectures&lt;br /&gt;
**Workshops|Workshops&lt;br /&gt;
**Pre- and Post-Course Assignments|Pre- and post-course assignments&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Setting up the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Course set-up&lt;br /&gt;
**Timeline&lt;br /&gt;
**Platforms and tools|Platforms and tools&lt;br /&gt;
**Recommended personnel|Personnel&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with workshop mentors|Partnering with workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
**Application and Participant Selection | Participant Recruitment &amp;amp; Selection&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Journal partners&lt;br /&gt;
**Establishing contact with a journal partner|Establishing contact&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with a journal|&lt;br /&gt;
**First meeting with the journal partner|First meeting&lt;br /&gt;
*5. Adapting the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Adapting Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Special topics&lt;br /&gt;
**Artificial intelligence in the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Data protection&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Appendix&lt;br /&gt;
**Talks|Talks&lt;br /&gt;
**Publications|Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Page Tools&lt;br /&gt;
** New Page|Create new page&lt;br /&gt;
** New Template|Create a Template&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:Categories|Show categories&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:AllPages|All Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** randompage-url|randompage&lt;br /&gt;
** Mediawiki:Sidebar|Edit Sidebar&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:SpecialPages|Special Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** helppage|help-mediawiki&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* SEARCH&lt;br /&gt;
* TOOLBOX&lt;br /&gt;
* LANGUAGES&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=464</id>
		<title>MediaWiki:Sidebar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&amp;diff=464"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:45:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;*navigation&lt;br /&gt;
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Overview&lt;br /&gt;
**Peerspectives|About Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Course Structure&lt;br /&gt;
**Lectures|Lectures&lt;br /&gt;
**Workshops|Workshops&lt;br /&gt;
**Pre- and Post-Course Assignments|Pre- and post-course assignments&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Setting up the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Course set-up&lt;br /&gt;
**Timeline&lt;br /&gt;
**Platforms and tools|Platforms and tools&lt;br /&gt;
**Recommended personnel|Personnel&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with workshop mentors|Partnering with workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
**Application and Participant Selection | Application &amp;amp; Selection &lt;br /&gt;
*4. Journal partners&lt;br /&gt;
**Establishing contact with a journal partner|Establishing contact&lt;br /&gt;
**Partnering with a journal|&lt;br /&gt;
**First meeting with the journal partner|First meeting&lt;br /&gt;
*5. Adapting the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Adapting Peerspectives&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Special topics&lt;br /&gt;
**Artificial intelligence in the course&lt;br /&gt;
**Data protection&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Appendix&lt;br /&gt;
**Talks|Talks&lt;br /&gt;
**Publications|Publications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Page Tools&lt;br /&gt;
** New Page|Create new page&lt;br /&gt;
** New Template|Create a Template&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:Categories|Show categories&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:AllPages|All Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** randompage-url|randompage&lt;br /&gt;
** Mediawiki:Sidebar|Edit Sidebar&lt;br /&gt;
** Special:SpecialPages|Special Pages&lt;br /&gt;
** helppage|help-mediawiki&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* SEARCH&lt;br /&gt;
* TOOLBOX&lt;br /&gt;
* LANGUAGES&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors:_Workshop_mentor_calendar_block_(Calendar_invitation)&amp;diff=463</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors:_Workshop_mentor_calendar_block_(Calendar_invitation)&amp;diff=463"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:41:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Notes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|For each calendar invitation, include the following information (and double check to ensure that it is correct):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct date&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct time&lt;br /&gt;
* Meeting link in the “Location” section&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Calendar invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipient'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Calendar invite text body'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear Workshop Mentors,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This a calendar invite and ['''Zoom'''] link for the ['''first / second / third / fourth'''] Peerspectives workshop. Please let us know as soon as possible if this date no longer works for you by contacting ['''your email address'''], and we can find a solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your Name'''] is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Join Zoom Meeting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Link to Zoom meeting''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meeting ID: ['''XXX XXXX XXXX''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Passcode: ['''XXXXXX''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your Name''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Calendar invitations]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Partnering with workshop mentors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshop mentors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshops]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Personnel]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Category:Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=462</id>
		<title>Category:Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Category:Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=462"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:40:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created blank page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Personnel:_Contacting_prospective_workshop_mentors_(Email)&amp;diff=461</id>
		<title>Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Personnel:_Contacting_prospective_workshop_mentors_(Email)&amp;diff=461"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:40:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Email ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipient:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Prospective workshop mentor&lt;br /&gt;
cc: the individual who recommended the prospective workshop mentor&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Subject:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives: ['''Winter/Spring/Summer/Fall YYYY'''] Semester Invitation&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Attachments:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Syllabus (optional)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Email text body:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear ['''Firstname Lastname'''],&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ['''Your Institution'''] at ['''your university'''] in ['''your city'''] would like to invite you to participate in our upcoming course, Peerspectives, as a workshop mentor. Peerspectives is a project in cooperation with ['''insert partner journal'''] that seeks to address the lack of formal training for peer review writing available to early career researchers. Our semester-long course for ['''PhD students in the health data sciences - revise if different'''] equips participants with the necessary theoretical background knowledge and an understanding of the scientific publishing system and processes. The entirety of the course will be held online over Zoom. For more details on the course, please visit the [[Peerspectives (Main)|Peerspectives Wiki page.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives offers students the opportunity to work collaboratively on live manuscript reviews—supplied by ['''insert partner journal''']—in four workshops. This process is guided and overseen by a workshop mentor. Workshop mentors have experience as peer reviewers and have a strong methods background. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You were identified by one of our existing workshop-mentors, ['''insert name of recommender'''], as being a good candidate for this role. The time commitment will be for 4 workshop dates (please see dates below; meetings are flexible but must be within the given weeks), as well as an introductory meeting for the editor mentors on the ['''MONTH DD'''] at ['''HH:MM - HH:MM'''] [('''insert timezone''')]. Additionally, workshop mentors may need to spend an additional hour or two finalizing their team’s reviews before they return the final report to ['''insert partner journal''']. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Topic'''&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Date and time'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 1&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 2&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 3&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 4&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
If you’re interested and would like to participate in this upcoming semester, we would be very pleased to include you in this round of Peerspectives. If you would rather participate in a future semester, we would be happy to reach out to you when developing the next courses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have any additional questions concerning the organization of the course, please feel free to reach out to our course administrators at ['''your email address'''].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the best and wishing you a good rest of your week,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your name(s)''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Email]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Personnel]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshop mentors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Partnering with workshop mentors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=460</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=460"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:40:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop mentor orientation meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshop mentors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Personnel]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Partnering with workshop mentors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=459</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=459"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:40:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop mentor orientation meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshop mentors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Category:Workshop_mentors&amp;diff=458</id>
		<title>Category:Workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Category:Workshop_mentors&amp;diff=458"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:39:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created blank page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Personnel:_Contacting_prospective_workshop_mentors_(Email)&amp;diff=457</id>
		<title>Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Personnel:_Contacting_prospective_workshop_mentors_(Email)&amp;diff=457"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:39:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Email ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipient:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Prospective workshop mentor&lt;br /&gt;
cc: the individual who recommended the prospective workshop mentor&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Subject:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives: ['''Winter/Spring/Summer/Fall YYYY'''] Semester Invitation&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Attachments:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Syllabus (optional)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Email text body:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear ['''Firstname Lastname'''],&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ['''Your Institution'''] at ['''your university'''] in ['''your city'''] would like to invite you to participate in our upcoming course, Peerspectives, as a workshop mentor. Peerspectives is a project in cooperation with ['''insert partner journal'''] that seeks to address the lack of formal training for peer review writing available to early career researchers. Our semester-long course for ['''PhD students in the health data sciences - revise if different'''] equips participants with the necessary theoretical background knowledge and an understanding of the scientific publishing system and processes. The entirety of the course will be held online over Zoom. For more details on the course, please visit the [[Peerspectives (Main)|Peerspectives Wiki page.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peerspectives offers students the opportunity to work collaboratively on live manuscript reviews—supplied by ['''insert partner journal''']—in four workshops. This process is guided and overseen by a workshop mentor. Workshop mentors have experience as peer reviewers and have a strong methods background. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You were identified by one of our existing workshop-mentors, ['''insert name of recommender'''], as being a good candidate for this role. The time commitment will be for 4 workshop dates (please see dates below; meetings are flexible but must be within the given weeks), as well as an introductory meeting for the editor mentors on the ['''MONTH DD'''] at ['''HH:MM - HH:MM'''] [('''insert timezone''')]. Additionally, workshop mentors may need to spend an additional hour or two finalizing their team’s reviews before they return the final report to ['''insert partner journal''']. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Topic'''&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Date and time'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 1&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 2&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 3&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop 4&lt;br /&gt;
|['''MONTH DD, YYYY; HH:MM-HH:MM''')]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
If you’re interested and would like to participate in this upcoming semester, we would be very pleased to include you in this round of Peerspectives. If you would rather participate in a future semester, we would be happy to reach out to you when developing the next courses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have any additional questions concerning the organization of the course, please feel free to reach out to our course administrators at ['''your email address'''].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the best and wishing you a good rest of your week,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your name(s)''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Email]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Personnel]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshop mentors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=456</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=456"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:37:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop mentor orientation meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=455</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=455"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:37:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop mentor orientation meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=454</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=454"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:37:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop mentor orientation meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=453</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors&amp;diff=453"/>
		<updated>2025-10-08T13:36:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop mentors are experienced researchers, peer reviewers, and ideally journal editors,  who host [[workshops]] and provide guidance for students in finalizing their joint peer review report. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer to [[Recommended personnel#Workshop%20mentor|this page]] for more detailed information about the requirements and responsibilities of workshop mentors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Number of workshop mentors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Before inviting mentors to participate, the course administrator should determine how many mentors will be needed to run the course. This determination is based on the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will take part in the course&lt;br /&gt;
* the number of participants that will comprise each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Workshops#Workshop%20groups|Workshop groups]] should each contain 4–6 participants, and the course capacity should be limited to a maximum of 40 participants to keep course administration manageable. Once the total number of groups is confirmed, one workshop mentor should be invited per group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
When inviting workshop mentors, include the workshop dates and ask each mentor to confirm their willingness and availability. &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Email''': [[Personnel: Contacting prospective workshop mentors (Email)|Contacting prospective workshop mentors]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If the workshop mentor(s) agree to participate, follow up with calendar invitations for each scheduled workshop session to ensure the times are reserved in their schedules.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''''Calendar invitation''': [[Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)|Workshop mentor calendar block]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Workshop Mentor Orientation Meeting ==&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend providing a 60 minute training session for workshop mentors to attend prior to the first workshop date, especially for mentors who are participating for the first time. This training summarizes the [[Lectures#Lecture%20topics|content from the lectures]], clarifies the expectations for the participants and the mentors, and provides suggestions for possible workshop structures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The slide deck used for the new workshop mentor orientation meeting in the original Peerspectives course can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tips: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Workshop dates and times can be adjusted to fit mentors' schedules. However, to reduce administrative effort, it is recommended to schedule all workshop groups at the same date and time, if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# If you are running many workshop groups in parallel, consider having a mentor on standby in case a scheduled mentor is unable to supervise a workshop group at the last minute.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments:_Post-course_assignment_feedback_(Email)&amp;diff=452</id>
		<title>Pre- and Post-Course Assignments: Post-course assignment feedback (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments:_Post-course_assignment_feedback_(Email)&amp;diff=452"/>
		<updated>2025-10-06T14:23:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: add link to feedback form&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Email ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipients:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Each individual participant that submitted a post-course assignment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Subject:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|[Peerspectives] Post-course assessment feedback &amp;amp; forwarding your contact info to ['''Partner Journal''']&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Attachments:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|[https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/File:Lastname_post-assessment_feedback.docx Feedback form]; participant's assignment submission&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Email text body:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear Peerspectives Participant,&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for participating in the Peerspectives course during the ['''Spring / Summer / Fall / Winter'''] Semester ['''YYYY''']! As promised, we are piloting an initiative to provide '''feedback on the quality of your post-course assessment'''. Of course, your feedback comes from the perspective of your instructors who were neither actually the editors nor authors of the manuscripts. As a reminder, as long as it was clear to us that you put in some effort, the quality score of your post-course assessment had no bearing on whether you passed the course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you know, the manuscript assigned to you for the post-course assessment was not matched to your specific area of expertise. Of course, some of you may have received an article closely aligned with your subject area, but this occurred by chance. In a real-world peer review setting, editors typically assign manuscripts to subject-matter experts invited to review because of their specific expertise. We have considered this limitation in our quality assessment and placed much less emphasis on subject-matter-related details when providing feedback. Several of you explicitly noted areas where you lacked expertise or suggested that the editor seek additional feedback from other reviewers. Editors appreciate such statements, and we strongly encourage all of you to incorporate this practice in your future reviews.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a final note, as announced during the course, we would like to submit contact information of those of you with sufficiently high-quality scores in this post-course assessment to ''['''Partner Journal''']'' for future review assignments. Only if you do '''not''' agree with us sharing your name and email address, please send us a reply email to opt out by ['''MONTH DD, YYYY''']. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wishing you all the best for the future and many happy peer review experiences! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your Name(s)''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=File:Lastname_post-assessment_feedback.docx&amp;diff=451</id>
		<title>File:Lastname post-assessment feedback.docx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=File:Lastname_post-assessment_feedback.docx&amp;diff=451"/>
		<updated>2025-10-06T14:20:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Template of the post-course assignment feedback form, to be filled out by course instructors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Summary ==&lt;br /&gt;
Template of the post-course assignment feedback form, to be filled out by course instructors.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives-Wiki:About&amp;diff=446</id>
		<title>Peerspectives-Wiki:About</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives-Wiki:About&amp;diff=446"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T15:11:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This Wiki was designed and intended to provide a template for educators to integrate Peerspectives into their own academic program. In addition to details regarding the purpose, learning objectives, and structure of the course, we also provide the following:&lt;br /&gt;
*Modifiable lecture slides&lt;br /&gt;
*Email templates used to run the course&lt;br /&gt;
*Suggestions for adapting the course to other disciplines or career stages&lt;br /&gt;
*Lessons learned from previous iterations of the course, tested via trial-and-error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please use the left side panel for navigation, in addition to the search bar at the top of this page.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives-Wiki:About&amp;diff=445</id>
		<title>Peerspectives-Wiki:About</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Peerspectives-Wiki:About&amp;diff=445"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T15:11:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created blank page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_tools&amp;diff=444</id>
		<title>Platforms and tools</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_tools&amp;diff=444"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T13:44:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!About this page&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This page outlines recommendations for the two required materials for the course: collaboration platforms, and platforms for online meetings.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
== Considerations ==&lt;br /&gt;
The most important aspect when selecting platforms for the course is to '''ensure that each selected platform meets the confidentiality requirements of the journal partner.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Required platforms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== '''&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Collaborative platform to provide comments on manuscripts&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;''' ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Paperhive (used for the original Peerspectives course)&lt;br /&gt;
* Google Drive&lt;br /&gt;
* DropBox Paper&lt;br /&gt;
* Sharepoint  &lt;br /&gt;
* ONLYOFFICE DocSpace&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original Peerspectives course had a license with [https://paperhive.org/ Paperhive]. Paperhive is a secure platform that allows participants to add comments and highlights to a pdf document while prohibiting the download of the document. If your journal partner does not require the papers to be shared securely, or you are using publicly available articles such as pre-prints/published manuscripts, tools such as Google Drive can be a free alternative to Paperhive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Platform to host online meetings&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Zoom (used for the original Peerspectives course)&lt;br /&gt;
* Teams&lt;br /&gt;
* Google Meet &lt;br /&gt;
* Skype&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Platforms and tools]]&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_tools&amp;diff=443</id>
		<title>Platforms and tools</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_tools&amp;diff=443"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T13:42:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!About this page&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This page outlines recommendations for the two required materials for the course: collaboration platforms, and platforms for online meetings.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
== Considerations ==&lt;br /&gt;
The most important aspect when selecting platforms for the course is to '''ensure that each selected platform meets the confidentiality requirements of the journal partner.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Required platforms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== '''&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Collaborative platform to provide comments on manuscripts&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;''' ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Paperhive (used for the original Peerspectives course)&lt;br /&gt;
* Google Drive&lt;br /&gt;
* DropBox Paper&lt;br /&gt;
* Sharepoint  &lt;br /&gt;
* ONLYOFFICE DocSpace&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original Peerspectives course had a license with Paperhive (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://paperhive.org/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;). Paperhive is a secure platform that allows participants to add comments and highlights to a pdf document while prohibiting the download of the document. If your journal partner does not require the papers to be shared securely, or you are using pre-prints/published manuscripts, tools such as Google Drive can be a free alternative to Paperhive. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Platform to host online meetings&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Zoom (used for the original Peerspectives course)&lt;br /&gt;
* Teams&lt;br /&gt;
* Google Meet &lt;br /&gt;
* Skype&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Platforms and tools]]&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=442</id>
		<title>Talks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Talks&amp;diff=442"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T13:38:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Date&lt;br /&gt;
!Title (and link for recorded events)&lt;br /&gt;
!Event Description&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11 Dec, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|01 Nov, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Evaluating Researchers: Ambitions and Realities''' (''panel discussion)''&lt;br /&gt;
|Berlin Science Week Panel Discussion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* This was a joint event by the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research, the BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, and the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hosted by Dr. Jess Rohmann&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|18 June, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Peerspectives on peer review: A crash course on peer review for major biomedical journals for students and early career researchers''' ''(workshop)''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop at the 2024 Society for Epidemiologic Research Conference in Austin, Texas&lt;br /&gt;
Faciliated by Dr. Tobias Kurth, Dr. Jess Rohmann, Dr. Toivo Glatz, Dr. Tim Feeney &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|03 June, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Publishing Causal Inference Methods in Applied Clinical Journals - Following the Yellow Brick Road&lt;br /&gt;
Turing CIIG Seminar: Dr. Jessica Rohmann&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|22 Feb, 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|Peer Review as a Vehicle to Explore the Scientific Publishing Landscape, Improve Quality, and Strengthen Methods Competencies&lt;br /&gt;
Stanford METRICS talk by Dr. Jessica Rohmann&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|23 Jan. 2024&lt;br /&gt;
|In this interactive workshop, students and early career researchers were introduced to concepts of research quality and open science/access.&lt;br /&gt;
Workshop by Noel Kronenberg, Till Adam, Dr. Jessica Rohmann, and Dr. Toivo Glatz.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|06 Dec. 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Improving quality of peer review reports and strengthening epidemiological methods competencies: perspectives from the Peerspectives program.&lt;br /&gt;
Talk by Jess Rohmann at CausaLAB Methods Series&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|06 Dec, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Perspectives from Peerspectives: Peer review and biomedical editing training initiative for PhD Students&lt;br /&gt;
Talk by Dr. Toivo Glatz at the QUEST Seminar on Responsible Research&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|22 Sept, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives: Pe(e)rspectives on Peer-review&lt;br /&gt;
Talk given by Jess Rohmann&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|08 Jul, 2022&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives: Peer-review training initiative for the biomedical sciences&lt;br /&gt;
Poster by Dr. Toivo Glatz for the Open X Conference of the Berlin University Alliance&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|21 Feb, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives: Hands-on peer-review training for PhD students in health data sciences&lt;br /&gt;
Poster by Jess Rohmann for the Reward Equator Conference 2020 in Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments&amp;diff=441</id>
		<title>Pre- and Post-Course Assignments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments&amp;diff=441"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T06:15:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Notes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The pre- and post-course assignments have been designed to simulate a &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; peer-review process. The emails that are sent to the participants about the pre- and post-course assignments include an introduction to the assignment and are then followed by a peer review request that has been adapted from requests used by the journal partner.&lt;br /&gt;
The assignments can use real manuscripts that have passed peer review but are not yet published, pre-prints, or papers that have already been published.&lt;br /&gt;
|} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pre-course Assignment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rationale ===&lt;br /&gt;
To provide the instructor with an idea of the peer review ability of incoming course participants prior to starting the course and to provide participants with a simulated real-world experience of being invited to review a paper at the partnering journal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assignment description ===&lt;br /&gt;
We request four manuscripts from the partner journal that have passed editorial triage to the peer review stage but have not yet been published from our journal partner. If you are not working with a journal partner, any pre-print or published paper would also be sufficient. If any peer reviews have been published together with the paper, instructors should be aware that students may access/use this content while preparing their assignments.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We assign participants to review one of the four manuscripts at random. They receive an invitation from us via email to review their assigned manuscript as if they were getting the request directly from the journal, with the primary difference being that their review should be submitted to us via return email rather than uploaded via the journal partner's submission system. Beyond what is provided in the journal partner's usual reviewer invitation email, no guidance on how to write a peer-review report is provided. However, participants are told they may use any resources available to them (as do actual invited peer reviewers).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants are given a a two-week deadline to complete the review assignment, and they are able to request a one-week extension if needed. Beginning at the two-week deadline, we send chase emails every 3 days until the review is received. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assessment of the pre-course assignment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Other than for the purposes of our program evaluation study, we have not performed a formal assessment of the pre-course assignment. Since the purpose of the assignment is to give participants a first experience with receiving a peer review assingment &amp;quot;cold&amp;quot; (before receiving any training), we do not believe that giving them specific feedback on the review itself is valuable at this stage. We recommend that the instructors read through the submitted assignments prior to starting the course to get an idea of the partcipants' levels and degree of familiarity with the reviewing task. We have also incorporated a detailed self-reflection exercise as one of the homework assignments. Here, participants review their own pre-course assignment after having attended the lectures, reflecting on the report's strengths and weaknesses, which is then discussed as a group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have also used the pre-course assignment to help us assign the workshop groups. If you are running a course with multiple workshop groups, you could try to distribute participants who generate stronger baseline review reports evenly between the groups.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Related email templates ====&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Email:''' [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Pre-_and_post-course_assignments:_Pre-course_assignment_(Email) Pre-course assignment]''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-course Assignment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rationale ===&lt;br /&gt;
To provide participants with specific feedback on their own review reports after they have completed the course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assignment description ===&lt;br /&gt;
We use the same four manuscripts that were distributed as the pre-course assignment. For the post-course assignment, we recommend that each participant be assigned one of the four pre-course assignments that they have not previously reviewed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, based on the timeframe of the course, the manuscripts that the participants have reviewed for the pre- and post- course assignments will be published shortly after the completion of the course. The participants will then be able to compare their own reviews to the published reviews for the papers (if partnering with an open review journal).&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Related email templates ====&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Email:''' [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Pre-_and_post-course_assignments:_Post-course_assignment_(Email) Post-course assignment]''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assessment of the post-course assignment ===&lt;br /&gt;
The teaching team provides feedback on the post-course assignment following submission. We developed a Review Report Quality Score, with items adapted from previous studies &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://kb.wisc.edu/instructional-resources/page.php?id=114199&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://peerj.com/articles/17514/#supp-1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and tailored towards the specific criteria of The BMJ ['''maybe also cite?]'''. The following table outlines the 13 items, divided into general and specific criteria, each worth 2 points with the exception of the last language item which is only worth 1 point.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
!Peerspectives Review Report Quality Score (Criteria specific for The BMJ)&lt;br /&gt;
!Points&lt;br /&gt;
possible&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |Specific&lt;br /&gt;
content&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on study objectives, rationale&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on methods-related aspects (e.g. study design, statistical analyses, sampling, suitability of reported effect sizes/confidence intervals/p-values, reporting quality - relevant for replicability/reproducibility)&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on tables, figures, visual aspects of the manuscript&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on the interpretation of results and whether the conclusions are supported by the data&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on specific manuscript strengths (study, theory, methods, argument) and limitations (including biases)&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on manuscript structure, flow, writing style and/or language&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |General&lt;br /&gt;
items&lt;br /&gt;
|Structure: includes a short summary as well as some specific comments&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Specific reflection on importance, relevance and suitability, also given the journal's specific scope/readership&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on “global concerns” (larger structural, logic/reasoning issues) rather than detailed “local concerns” (spelling, grammar, formatting)&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Thorough, respectful, constructive critique, including positive and negative comments, also offering suggestions rather than simply labeling problems&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Appropriate comment density, overall review length demonstrates the reviewer’s investment in peer review while not overwhelming the reader&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Filled out reviewer form completely, including declaring any competing interests or no competing interests&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Review is written in understandable English (language, meaning of statements clear, few, if any, distracting typos/grammatical mistakes) - 1 point only&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Scoring ====&lt;br /&gt;
Each item is scored based on the following criteria, awarding 0, 1 or 2 points depending on the completeness of reporting. No partial points are awarded.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Points&lt;br /&gt;
!Suggested criteria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|Item not addressed or insufficiently addressed in your review or not directly evident in your the review report&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Item may be partially or indirectly addressed within your review report, but lacks supporting details, clarity and/or otherwise not fully up to the standards expected of peer reviewers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Item clearly captured within your review report and reflects sufficient standards for peer reviewing&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Feedback ====&lt;br /&gt;
To provide an interpretation of the overall review report quality, the points of all 13 items are summed up to a total score, which falls into one of the four categories outlined in the table below. This should give students an immediate impression on how they performed and if their work was up to the standard that BMJ editors expect to see in high quality reviews. The course instructors can add additional comments after these standard evaluation if there are notable positive or negative aspects, e.g., praising thorough checks of supplement, study protocol and trial registration or advising against the use of inappropriate language, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Total Points&lt;br /&gt;
!Suggested comments&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|23-25&lt;br /&gt;
|Nice job! Editors and authors alike would appreciate your high-quality report. Keep up the great work.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|20-22&lt;br /&gt;
|Your work represents a good starting point. Your report had many strengths but was missing a few important elements.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15-19&lt;br /&gt;
|Your review had some strengths but was missing several important elements.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;15&lt;br /&gt;
|Your review was missing several important elements. Editors would likely not consider your review to be complete.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students receive an email with the individual scoring of all items, as well as the overall feedback and any additional comments (if applicable). In case the reviewed papers are still currently under consideration at the journal partner, reports that scored &amp;gt;20 points can be forwarded to the journal as an actual review report. In cases where manuscripts have been published in the meantime, a link to the paper will be shared with the student.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
'''Related email templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Email:''''' ''[[Pre- and Post-Course Assignments: Post-course assignment feedback (Email)|Post-course assignment feedback]]''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pre- and Post-Course Assignments]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments:_Post-course_assignment_feedback_(Email)&amp;diff=440</id>
		<title>Pre- and Post-Course Assignments: Post-course assignment feedback (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments:_Post-course_assignment_feedback_(Email)&amp;diff=440"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T06:15:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Email ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipients:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Each individual participant that submitted a post-course assignment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Subject:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|[Peerspectives] Post-course assessment feedback &amp;amp; forwarding your contact info to ['''Partner Journal''']&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Attachments:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Feedback form; participant's assignment submission&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Email text body:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear Peerspectives Participant,&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for participating in the Peerspectives course during the ['''Spring / Summer / Fall / Winter'''] Semester ['''YYYY''']! As promised, we are piloting an initiative to provide '''feedback on the quality of your post-course assessment'''. Of course, your feedback comes from the perspective of your instructors who were neither actually the editors nor authors of the manuscripts. As a reminder, as long as it was clear to us that you put in some effort, the quality score of your post-course assessment had no bearing on whether you passed the course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you know, the manuscript assigned to you for the post-course assessment was not matched to your specific area of expertise. Of course, some of you may have received an article closely aligned with your subject area, but this occurred by chance. In a real-world peer review setting, editors typically assign manuscripts to subject-matter experts invited to review because of their specific expertise. We have considered this limitation in our quality assessment and placed much less emphasis on subject-matter-related details when providing feedback. Several of you explicitly noted areas where you lacked expertise or suggested that the editor seek additional feedback from other reviewers. Editors appreciate such statements, and we strongly encourage all of you to incorporate this practice in your future reviews.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a final note, as announced during the course, we would like to submit contact information of those of you with sufficiently high-quality scores in this post-course assessment to ''['''Partner Journal''']'' for future review assignments. Only if you do '''not''' agree with us sharing your name and email address, please send us a reply email to opt out by ['''MONTH DD, YYYY''']. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wishing you all the best for the future and many happy peer review experiences! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your Name(s)''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments&amp;diff=439</id>
		<title>Pre- and Post-Course Assignments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments&amp;diff=439"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T06:10:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Notes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The pre- and post-course assignments have been designed to simulate a &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; peer-review process. The emails that are sent to the participants about the pre- and post-course assignments include an introduction to the assignment and are then followed by a peer review request that has been adapted from requests used by the journal partner.&lt;br /&gt;
The assignments can use real manuscripts that have passed peer review but are not yet published, pre-prints, or papers that have already been published.&lt;br /&gt;
|} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pre-course Assignment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rationale ===&lt;br /&gt;
To provide the instructor with an idea of the peer review ability of incoming course participants prior to starting the course and to provide participants with a simulated real-world experience of being invited to review a paper at the partnering journal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assignment description ===&lt;br /&gt;
We request four manuscripts from the partner journal that have passed editorial triage to the peer review stage but have not yet been published from our journal partner. If you are not working with a journal partner, any pre-print or published paper would also be sufficient. If any peer reviews have been published together with the paper, instructors should be aware that students may access/use this content while preparing their assignments.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We assign participants to review one of the four manuscripts at random. They receive an invitation from us via email to review their assigned manuscript as if they were getting the request directly from the journal, with the primary difference being that their review should be submitted to us via return email rather than uploaded via the journal partner's submission system. Beyond what is provided in the journal partner's usual reviewer invitation email, no guidance on how to write a peer-review report is provided. However, participants are told they may use any resources available to them (as do actual invited peer reviewers).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants are given a a two-week deadline to complete the review assignment, and they are able to request a one-week extension if needed. Beginning at the two-week deadline, we send chase emails every 3 days until the review is received. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assessment of the pre-course assignment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Other than for the purposes of our program evaluation study, we have not performed a formal assessment of the pre-course assignment. Since the purpose of the assignment is to give participants a first experience with receiving a peer review assingment &amp;quot;cold&amp;quot; (before receiving any training), we do not believe that giving them specific feedback on the review itself is valuable at this stage. We recommend that the instructors read through the submitted assignments prior to starting the course to get an idea of the partcipants' levels and degree of familiarity with the reviewing task. We have also incorporated a detailed self-reflection exercise as one of the homework assignments. Here, participants review their own pre-course assignment after having attended the lectures, reflecting on the report's strengths and weaknesses, which is then discussed as a group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have also used the pre-course assignment to help us assign the workshop groups. If you are running a course with multiple workshop groups, you could try to distribute participants who generate stronger baseline review reports evenly between the groups.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Related email templates ====&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Email:''' [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Pre-_and_post-course_assignments:_Pre-course_assignment_(Email) Pre-course assignment]''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-course Assignment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rationale ===&lt;br /&gt;
To provide participants with specific feedback on their own review reports after they have completed the course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assignment description ===&lt;br /&gt;
We use the same four manuscripts that were distributed as the pre-course assignment. For the post-course assignment, we recommend that each participant be assigned one of the four pre-course assignments that they have not previously reviewed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, based on the timeframe of the course, the manuscripts that the participants have reviewed for the pre- and post- course assignments will be published shortly after the completion of the course. The participants will then be able to compare their own reviews to the published reviews for the papers (if partnering with an open review journal).&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Related email templates ====&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Email:''' [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Pre-_and_post-course_assignments:_Post-course_assignment_(Email) Post-course assignment]''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Assessment of the post-course assignment ===&lt;br /&gt;
The teaching team provides feedback on the post-course assignment following submission. We developed a Review Report Quality Score, with items adapted from previous studies &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://kb.wisc.edu/instructional-resources/page.php?id=114199&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://peerj.com/articles/17514/#supp-1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and tailored towards the specific criteria of The BMJ ['''maybe also cite?]'''. The following table outlines the 13 items, divided into general and specific criteria, each worth 2 points with the exception of the last language item which is only worth 1 point.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
!Peerspectives Review Report Quality Score (Criteria specific for The BMJ)&lt;br /&gt;
!Points&lt;br /&gt;
possible&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |Specific&lt;br /&gt;
content&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on study objectives, rationale&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on methods-related aspects (e.g. study design, statistical analyses, sampling, suitability of reported effect sizes/confidence intervals/p-values, reporting quality - relevant for replicability/reproducibility)&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on tables, figures, visual aspects of the manuscript&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on the interpretation of results and whether the conclusions are supported by the data&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on specific manuscript strengths (study, theory, methods, argument) and limitations (including biases)&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Comments on manuscript structure, flow, writing style and/or language&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |General&lt;br /&gt;
items&lt;br /&gt;
|Structure: includes a short summary as well as some specific comments&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Specific reflection on importance, relevance and suitability, also given the journal's specific scope/readership&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on “global concerns” (larger structural, logic/reasoning issues) rather than detailed “local concerns” (spelling, grammar, formatting)&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Thorough, respectful, constructive critique, including positive and negative comments, also offering suggestions rather than simply labeling problems&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Appropriate comment density, overall review length demonstrates the reviewer’s investment in peer review while not overwhelming the reader&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Filled out reviewer form completely, including declaring any competing interests or no competing interests&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Review is written in understandable English (language, meaning of statements clear, few, if any, distracting typos/grammatical mistakes) - 1 point only&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Scoring ====&lt;br /&gt;
Each item is scored based on the following criteria, awarding 0, 1 or 2 points depending on the completeness of reporting. No partial points are awarded.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Points&lt;br /&gt;
!Suggested criteria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|Item not addressed or insufficiently addressed in your review or not directly evident in your the review report&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Item may be partially or indirectly addressed within your review report, but lacks supporting details, clarity and/or otherwise not fully up to the standards expected of peer reviewers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Item clearly captured within your review report and reflects sufficient standards for peer reviewing&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Feedback ====&lt;br /&gt;
To provide an interpretation of the overall review report quality, the points of all 13 items are summed up to a total score, which falls into one of the four categories outlined in the table below. This should give students an immediate impression on how they performed and if their work was up to the standard that BMJ editors expect to see in high quality reviews. The course instructors can add additional comments after these standard evaluation if there are notable positive or negative aspects, e.g., praising thorough checks of supplement, study protocol and trial registration or advising against the use of inappropriate language, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Total Points&lt;br /&gt;
!Suggested comments&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|23-25&lt;br /&gt;
|Nice job! Editors and authors alike would appreciate your high-quality report. Keep up the great work.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|20-22&lt;br /&gt;
|Your work represents a good starting point. Your report had many strengths but was missing a few important elements.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15-19&lt;br /&gt;
|Your review had some strengths but was missing several important elements.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;15&lt;br /&gt;
|Your review was missing several important elements. Editors would likely not consider your review to be complete.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Students receive an email with the individual scoring of all items, as well as the overall feedback and any additional comments (if applicable). In case the reviewed papers are still currently under consideration at the journal partner, reports that scored &amp;gt;20 points can be forwarded to the journal as an actual review report. In cases where manuscripts have been published in the meantime, a link to the paper will be shared with the student.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
'''Related email templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Email:''''' ''Post-course assignment feedback''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pre- and Post-Course Assignments]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments:_Post-course_assignment_feedback_(Email)&amp;diff=438</id>
		<title>Pre- and Post-Course Assignments: Post-course assignment feedback (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Pre-_and_Post-Course_Assignments:_Post-course_assignment_feedback_(Email)&amp;diff=438"/>
		<updated>2025-09-12T06:08:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created blank page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops&amp;diff=437</id>
		<title>Workshops</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops&amp;diff=437"/>
		<updated>2025-08-28T11:05:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;toc&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;float:left; margin-right:1em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Rationale&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The workshop sessions provide hands-on training in peer review under realistic conditions with the guidance of an experienced mentor. By working together to generate peer reviews as a group, the participants are able to learn from the mentor as well as the other participants in the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Format&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;===&lt;br /&gt;
The workshop block of Peerspectives consists of 4 sessions supervised by a mentor, with each session lasting up to three hours. Workshop mentors have the freedom to decide the structure of the workshop that is most suitable for their group. However, we recommend providing [[Partnering with workshop mentors|a short training session for mentors]] to attend prior to the first workshop date.  &lt;br /&gt;
==Workshop groups==&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal workshop group consists of 5-6 participants and is led by one workshop mentor. This group size provides flexibility in case participants drop out, ensuring that the workload doesn't fall disproportionately on too few participants. However, it is possible to have as few as 4 participants in each workshop group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the final lecture, participants will be informed of and meet with their assigned workshop groups. Each group should use this time to select a workshop lead for each week. The workshop lead is responsible for compiling the main body of the review report and checking in on the other group members to contribute their part. If the number of participants in a workshop group exceeds the number of workshop weeks, some weeks will have two workshop leads. While the workshop lead is responsible for ensuring the review progresses, all students are accountable for contributing to the peer review draft reports before each workshop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When assigning students to workshop groups, consider the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Participants' career stages&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;====&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''diverse'' career stages together&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''similar'' career stages together&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*participants earliest in their career can learn from participants with more experience&lt;br /&gt;
*participants later in their career can develop experience teaching earlier career participants&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*participants start from a similar baseline, which could make it easier for the workshop mentor to tailor the content effectively&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Participants' skill sets&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;====&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''diverse'' skill sets together&lt;br /&gt;
!Grouping ''similar'' skill sets together&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*Can provide a more holistic review&lt;br /&gt;
*Participants learn from different skill set perspectives&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
*It's can be easier to ensure that manuscripts are relevant and of interest to the group&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Expectations and timelines==&lt;br /&gt;
The figure below outlines a potential timeline surrounding the workshops when partnering with a journal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the real-world nature of the workshops and the intention to review manuscripts currently under consideration at a journal partner, there can be delays when requesting manuscripts and assigning them to the mentors. It is therefore important to plan ahead, communicate efficiently and transparently, and maintain some flexibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Before the workshop===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Workshop timeline v2a.png|thumb|Coordination timeline surrounding the workshops. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The course administrator should contact the journal two weeks before the workshop date to remind the journal editor to assign a manuscript to the workshop mentor.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Note:&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; Since mentors likely receive parallel peer review requests unrelated to Peerspectives, it is good practice to make explicit which manuscript is intended to be used in the workshop. To prevent accidental acceptance of unrelated peer review requests we recommend that the journal partner communicates the assigned manuscripts, including the manuscript names or IDs, via email.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The journal editor will then send the manuscripts to the workshop mentors, who will forward them to the course administrator for distribution to participants. If a workshop mentor does not receive the assigned manuscript on time, the course administrator should follow up with the journal editor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once the course administrator receives the manuscripts from the workshop mentors, all manuscript materials – including supplementary content – should be uploaded to the [[Required materials|sharing platform]] by the course administrator. The course administrator should then notify all participants that the manuscript and supporting material  have been uploaded.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Related email templates'''&lt;br /&gt;
*'''''Email:''' [https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php/Workshops:_Manuscript_Upload_Notification_(Email) Manuscript Upload Notification]''&lt;br /&gt;
*'''''Email''': [[Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 week (Email)|Deadline reminder - 1 week]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*'''''Email''': [[Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 day (Email)|Deadline reminder - 1 day]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;In the week prior to the workshop date all group members are expected to read the manuscript, generate relevant comments, and develop a draft of the peer review. For each workshop, a different group member (the lead) will be in charge of keeping the group on track to ensure that a preliminary peer review report is ready for the workshop date. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Note:&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; The course administrator should monitor the sharing platform and monitor the draft document for activity in the week leading up to the review. If there is no activity three days before the workshop, then the group should be reminded. Although 1-2 participants are assigned as leaders for each workshop, everyone in the group should contribute to the review draft.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===During the workshop ===&lt;br /&gt;
The workshops last between 1-3 hours depending on the amount of work the participants have invested before the workshop and the difficulty of the paper. As the sessions progress, workshop length typically decreases as groups find their rhythm and work more efficiently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course administrator should be available during the workshop to assist with any issues related to online meeting room access and to address questions that may arise at the start of the session.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Post workshop ===&lt;br /&gt;
If additional work is required to complete the review after the workshop, the group and workshop mentor should develop a plan for finalizing the peer review report before the workshop ends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workshop mentor is ultimately responsible for checking the peer review report that had been finalized by the group. The completed report will then circulate it to the group for approval before being sent to the journal by the workshop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the workshop mentor is unable to submit the review within 4 days after the workshop (or by the deadline given by the journal editor), they must communicate this to the journal editor and the course administrator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''The submitted review should clearly acknowledge all contributors to the review report''' (i.e., all participants and the mentor). The contributions of the course’s mentees improve science, should be acknowledged, and deserve credit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Confidentiality and data protection==&lt;br /&gt;
Depending on the confidentiality of the document (i.e., unpublished manuscript, pre-print, published material, etc.) and the agreement with your journal partner, you may want to consider using a secure platform to facilitate this. Please refer to [[Required Materials]] for potential platform suggestions, as well as considerations to make when selecting a platform to distribute manuscripts.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Tips==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Facilitating the online meeting=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*When scheduling workshops, it is helpful to be flexible to accommodate the schedules of workshop mentors. However, encouraging groups to meet on a consistent day and time helps streamline scheduling. When multiple groups meet at different times, coordination can quickly become challenging.&lt;br /&gt;
*If all the groups are meeting at the same date/times, create one, recurring meeting, and use that for the entire semester. Within that meeting create breakout rooms for each group.&lt;br /&gt;
* If using an online meeting platform such as Zoom, make sure that screen-sharing is allowed for all before the start of the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Workshop Groups=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Either during the application process or early in the course, asking participants to identify their top five academic strengths or research focuses can help in planning group assignments.&lt;br /&gt;
*After the first and second workshops, check in with the mentors to gauge how the groups are interacting and to ensure that all participants are contributing to the group.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshops]]&lt;br /&gt;
__NOINDEX__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops:_Deadline_reminder_-_1_day_(Email)&amp;diff=436</id>
		<title>Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 day (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops:_Deadline_reminder_-_1_day_(Email)&amp;diff=436"/>
		<updated>2025-08-28T11:04:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Email ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipient:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|All participants in each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Subject:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives peer review due in one day&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Attachments:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|None&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Email text body:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear Peerspectives Participant,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, you agreed to review Manuscript ID ['''insert manuscript ID'''], entitled &amp;quot;['''insert manuscript title''']”. This is a reminder that your review is due in one day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Email]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Workshops]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops:_Deadline_reminder_-_1_day_(Email)&amp;diff=435</id>
		<title>Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 day (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops:_Deadline_reminder_-_1_day_(Email)&amp;diff=435"/>
		<updated>2025-08-28T11:04:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Email ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipient:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|All participants in each workshop group&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Subject:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Peerspectives peer review due in one day&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Attachments:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|None&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Email text body:'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear Peerspectives Participant,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, you agreed to review Manuscript ID ['''insert manuscript ID'''], entitled &amp;quot;['''insert manuscript title''']”. This is a reminder that your review is due in one day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops:_Deadline_reminder_-_1_day_(Email)&amp;diff=434</id>
		<title>Workshops: Deadline reminder - 1 day (Email)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Workshops:_Deadline_reminder_-_1_day_(Email)&amp;diff=434"/>
		<updated>2025-08-28T11:02:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created blank page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Category:Calendar_invitations&amp;diff=433</id>
		<title>Category:Calendar invitations</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Category:Calendar_invitations&amp;diff=433"/>
		<updated>2025-08-28T10:01:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: Created blank page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors:_Workshop_mentor_calendar_block_(Calendar_invitation)&amp;diff=432</id>
		<title>Partnering with workshop mentors: Workshop mentor calendar block (Calendar invitation)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Partnering_with_workshop_mentors:_Workshop_mentor_calendar_block_(Calendar_invitation)&amp;diff=432"/>
		<updated>2025-08-28T10:01:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Meghan.Forrest: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!Notes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|For each calendar invitation, include the following information (and double check to ensure that it is correct):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct date&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct time&lt;br /&gt;
* Meeting link in the “Location” section&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Calendar invitation ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Recipient'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Workshop mentors&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|'''Calendar invite text body'''&lt;br /&gt;
|Dear Workshop Mentors,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This a calendar invite and ['''Zoom'''] link for the ['''first / second / third / fourth'''] Peerspectives workshop. Please let us know as soon as possible if this date no longer works for you by contacting ['''your email address'''], and we can find a solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your Name'''] is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Join Zoom Meeting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Link to Zoom meeting''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meeting ID: ['''XXX XXXX XXXX''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Passcode: ['''XXXXXX''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
['''Your Name''']&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peerspectives Team&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Calendar invitations]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meghan.Forrest</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>