| Dear Reviewer,
We are contacting you today with some important instructions and your pre-course assessment.
Below this email, you will find a [BMJ] reviewer invitation email that has been modified for our program. Attached, you will find the article to be peer reviewed and any supplemental information (including any checklists) that were submitted by the authors.
To simulate “real-world” reviewing conditions, we request that you submit your peer reviewer report within 2 weeks time (by noon on [MONTH DD, YYYY]).
You can use any resources available to you in order to complete the review. We ask that you do not discuss your review report with other Peerspectives participants. If you are not able to meet this deadline, we can give you an extension of one additional week, if you request this by email.
Please draft your reviewer report using the attached form and send your report to peerspectives@charite.de on or before the deadline. Forms should be returned as a DOCX or PDF file with the following naming convention: Lastname_Firstname_Pre-Assessment.
However, do keep in mind that this is a real, submitted manuscript that is currently under review at [The BMJ]. Therefore, you must adhere to the confidentiality agreement you signed as a part of the Peerspectives program and not disclose any information about the article to anyone outside of the framework of this assessment. Please, under no circumstances, upload your review online, contact [The BMJ] directly, or contact any of the authors of your assigned manuscript. Also note that your comments submitted for this assessment will not be sent to the authors, as it is an assessment exercise as part of your training in the course. Once you have completed the assignment, please delete all assessment files.
The course instructors will review your submitted assessment to get an idea of your abilities prior to the start of the course. As with all course assignments, your name will be submitted to them together with the assessment. We therefore encourage you to complete the assignment with your best effort, as if it is a real peer-review assignment.
Do not hesitate to contact us by email if you have any questions related to the course or assessment logistics. Please note, however, that we cannot answer any content-related questions pertaining to the first assessment.
Best wishes,
[YOUR NAME]
Peerspectives Team
--------------------
DD-MM-YYYY
Dear Reviewer,
Manuscript ID [04_BMJ-PEERSP-SS25] titled "[TITLE]" has been submitted to [The BMJ].
Thank you for accepting our invitation to review this paper by [MONTH DD, YYYY].
**FULLY OPEN PEER REVIEW FOR RESEARCH**
Please note that [The BMJ] uses fully open peer review for research papers. This means that authors and - for accepted papers - readers will be able to read all the reviewers’ signed reports
- we expect all reviewers to sign their reviews and declare any relevant competing interests
- we pass all reviewers’ comments to the authors, so please do not make any comments that you do not wish the author to see. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it
- if the paper is accepted we will in most cases post its pre-publication history alongside it on thebmj.com. This pre-publication history will comprise reviewers’ comments, previous versions of the manuscript, the study protocol (submitting the protocol is mandatory for all clinical trials and encouraged for all other studies at [The BMJ]), the report from the manuscript committee meeting, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors. There are exceptions to this policy. For example, in cases of stigmatised illnesses, we endeavor to allow patient reviewers to remain anonymous. Your signed review will be posted on [thebmj.com] next to the published paper.
**WRITING A REVIEW**
Our general guidance for peer reviewers is available at [http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers]
We are considering this article as a research article, and we would like your advice on its originality, importance to general medical readers, and scientific reliability.
- Originality - does the work add enough to what is already in the published literature? If so, what does it add? If not, please cite relevant references.
- Importance of work to general readers - does this work matter to clinicians, patients, teachers, or policymakers? Is a general journal the right place for it?
- Scientific reliability
- Research Question - clearly defined and appropriately answered?
- Overall design of study - adequate ?
- Participants studied - adequately described and their conditions defined?
- Methods - adequately described? Complies with relevant reporting standards - Eg CONSORT for randomised trials? Ethical?
- Results - answer the research question? Credible? Well presented?
- Interpretation and conclusions - warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data? Message clear?
- References - up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
- Abstract/summary/key messages/What this paper adds - reflect accurately what the paper says?
If the paper is a randomised controlled trial, we will have asked the authors to provide the protocol and a CONSORT checklist. Other research designs should have the relevant checklist (PRISMA, STARD, etc). These are available by clicking on "Download associated files".
Reviewers advise the editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Manuscripts sent for review are usually seen by at least two reviewers, and reviewers can access each other's reports on the same manuscript once [The BMJ] has made its decision. We hope that this will provide useful feedback and learning.
Finally, we would ask you to keep confidential any information about articles you are reviewing for us.
We would be very grateful for your help with this manuscript.
Thank you for your support.
[BMJ] Editorial Team
|