Lectures: Difference between revisions

From Peerspectives-Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(22 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The course begins with 4, three-hour long lectures
<div class="toc" style="float:left; margin-right:1em;">


Homework assignments + rationale
__TOC__


* 4x à 3 hours (with breaks)
</div>
* On Zoom, includes interactive polls, discussions & take-home assignment
=== <big>Rationale</big> ===
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.


=== <big>Format</big> ===
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.


The 4 interactive lectures presented in this course aim to provide the knowledge necessary to conduct a peer review. Each one of them has a duration of approximately 3 hours, and are composed for slide presentation, mentor-guide small group workshops and take-home assignments.  
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.


== <big>Lecture topics</big> ==
The content of the lectures is based on:
The content of the lectures is based on:


* Personal experience of the creators of the course, discussions with many colleagues
* First-hand experience of the course creators as authors, peer reviewers and journal editors
* The BMJ Reviewer training materials CITE, experience from The BMJ
* Discussions with colleagues
* Science Editors’ Handbook CITE
* The BMJ Reviewer training materials<ref>Resources for reviewers, <nowiki>https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers</nowiki> (accessed 24 March 2025).</ref>
* Scientific publications, commentaries and opinion pieces about peer review
* Experience from The BMJ
* Science Editors’ Handbook<ref>Travitz H. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, <nowiki>https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications</nowiki> (accessed 24 March 2025).</ref>
* Scientific publications, commentaries, and opinion pieces about peer review


This is an online course, so it is valid to incorporate a few practices that can minimize the occurrence of problems during the presentation. Beforehand, make sure that the link to the online video platform was sent to all involved and works well. A good procedure would be to state the link on Syllabus, so everyone could easily have access to it. A template of the slides presentation is available in this manual, but it is worth updating it according to the time and reality of the program.


The lecturer and student assistant should open the class 05 minutes before the start time, to receive the students. Due to the considerable screen time, a 05-10 minutes break for each hour of class is endorsed.
'''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.  


Below you will find an overview of each lecture, explaining the topics to be explored, materials needed, staff and assignment. It is advisable to pay special attention to the subsection “Responsibilities” as it brings the background work of each lecture.
# 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]]
## Course overview
## Getting to know you
## Role of journals
## Role of editors
## Role of peer review(ers)
## Reliability and biases, review types, & improving quality of peer review
# 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]]
## Sex, gender, & diversity considerations in peer review 
## Lecture 1 wrap-up + review of take-home assignment #1
## Peer review conduct and writing tips
## Guidelines for peer review: style and approach
## Writing a good review
## More tips + recommendations for peer reviewing
# 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]]
## Lecture 2 recap + review of take-home assignment #2
## Credit for contributions to research
## Measures of scientific productivity
## Predatory journals
## Ethical guidelines for peer review (COPE)
## Recap: Lecture 2 (continued)
## Open science
# Lecture title: '''From theory to practice - Review procedure & walk-through''' [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kRrsHnfgjueKeDUIL4JlLnPXESufi4zbKZowbAM9cDQ/edit?usp=sharing Complete slide deck]]
## From theory to practice: live walk through of a peer review
## Lecture 3 recap
## The peer review procedure: from start to finish
##* ''No recording available due to confidentiality agreement with journal partner''
## Final workshop preparations and assignment of workshop leaders
## Generative AI in peer review
## Last words


This manual does not intend to give a detailed step by step on how to conduct the lectures itself, as we expected that the course will be conducted by experienced lecturers. As such, our motivation is to offer instruction to smooth the path of those responsible for planning the lectures.
== <big>Take-home assignments</big> ==
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.
 
=== Take-home assignment #1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|'''Assignment'''
|Imagine that you are submitting your paper to a journal.
'''Question 1''': During the submission process, the journal asks you to optionally provide names of suggested reviewers.
 
Pick and defend one of the following three arguments:
 
# You should provide names of possible reviewers who you know
# You should provide names of possible peer reviewers who you do not know
# You should not provide any names of possible peer reviewers
 
'''Question 2''': An author used AI tools to partially write their manuscript.
 
Pick and defend one of the following three arguments:
 
# This should not be declared/no mention is needed
# This should be declared
# This should be declared and the AI tool should be listed as a co-author/contributor
|-
|'''Required for submission'''
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-RVN9BSNOMh8tDprW72O3uEIRLSTy_45MtEJ2uWHyNE/edit this Google Form].
|}
 
=== Take-home assignment #2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|'''Assignment'''
|“Reviewing the reviewers”  Critique of three peer review reports of a real BMJ submission + reflection on your own pre-course assessment.
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.
|-
|'''Required for submission'''
|Students are asked to submit a response to [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14HM8PMdEzo5wVT4LeRpvOMBhkdhZPbVCqda7kptHljQ/edit this Google Form].
|}
 
=== Take-home assignment #3 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|'''Assignment'''
|Find a paper (published after peer review or as a preprint) with open data and/or open code.
Write a short reflection (min 100 to max 300 words) based on the following prompts:
 
1. Where was information about the shared data/code provided in the paper?
 
2. Where/how can the shared data/code be accessed?
 
3. Was it clearly described in the manuscript what is contained in the shared data/code?
 
4. Were you able to access the shared data/code?
 
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?
 
6. What could improve your experience as a reviewer related to the code/data sharing in this paper?
|-
|'''Required for submission'''
|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]
|}
 
== <big>Tips</big> ==
'''<big>Before each lecture</big>'''
 
Check to ensure that  
 
* The online lecture link was sent to all course participants
* The lecture link works correctly
* All links within the lecture slides and/or embedded materials such as videos are working
** If you using polling features within the lecture, ensure the feature is set up in Zoom or an alternative platform
* All assignments from the previous week were submitted
** 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
 
* Send a reminder email the day before the lecture
** Depending on the workload of the participants, it can be helpful to send calendar invites with the lecture dates
* 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)
 
== References ==
[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures]]
<references />
__NOINDEX__

Latest revision as of 17:24, 27 November 2025

Rationale

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.

Format

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.

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.

Lecture topics

The content of the lectures is based on:

  • First-hand experience of the course creators as authors, peer reviewers and journal editors
  • Discussions with colleagues
  • The BMJ Reviewer training materials[1]
  • Experience from The BMJ
  • Science Editors’ Handbook[2]
  • Scientific publications, commentaries, and opinion pieces about peer review


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.

  1. Lecture title: Introduction to the roles of journals, editors, and peer reviewers [Complete slide deck]
    1. Course overview
    2. Getting to know you
    3. Role of journals
    4. Role of editors
    5. Role of peer review(ers)
    6. Reliability and biases, review types, & improving quality of peer review
  2. Lecture title: Peer review conduct and how to write a helpful, useful review [Complete slide deck]
    1. Sex, gender, & diversity considerations in peer review 
    2. Lecture 1 wrap-up + review of take-home assignment #1
    3. Peer review conduct and writing tips
    4. Guidelines for peer review: style and approach
    5. Writing a good review
    6. More tips + recommendations for peer reviewing
  3. Lecture title: Publish or perish? A cornucopia of contributions and credit, productivity,publication ethics, and open science [Complete slide deck]
    1. Lecture 2 recap + review of take-home assignment #2
    2. Credit for contributions to research
    3. Measures of scientific productivity
    4. Predatory journals
    5. Ethical guidelines for peer review (COPE)
    6. Recap: Lecture 2 (continued)
    7. Open science
  4. Lecture title: From theory to practice - Review procedure & walk-through [Complete slide deck]
    1. From theory to practice: live walk through of a peer review
    2. Lecture 3 recap
    3. The peer review procedure: from start to finish
      • No recording available due to confidentiality agreement with journal partner
    4. Final workshop preparations and assignment of workshop leaders
    5. Generative AI in peer review
    6. Last words

Take-home assignments

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.

Take-home assignment #1

Assignment Imagine that you are submitting your paper to a journal.

Question 1: During the submission process, the journal asks you to optionally provide names of suggested reviewers.

Pick and defend one of the following three arguments:

  1. You should provide names of possible reviewers who you know
  2. You should provide names of possible peer reviewers who you do not know
  3. You should not provide any names of possible peer reviewers

Question 2: An author used AI tools to partially write their manuscript.

Pick and defend one of the following three arguments:

  1. This should not be declared/no mention is needed
  2. This should be declared
  3. This should be declared and the AI tool should be listed as a co-author/contributor
Required for submission Students are asked to submit a response to this Google Form.

Take-home assignment #2

Assignment “Reviewing the reviewers”  Critique of three peer review reports of a real BMJ submission + reflection on your own pre-course assessment.

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.

Required for submission Students are asked to submit a response to this Google Form.

Take-home assignment #3

Assignment Find a paper (published after peer review or as a preprint) with open data and/or open code.

Write a short reflection (min 100 to max 300 words) based on the following prompts:

1. Where was information about the shared data/code provided in the paper?

2. Where/how can the shared data/code be accessed?

3. Was it clearly described in the manuscript what is contained in the shared data/code?

4. Were you able to access the shared data/code?

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?

6. What could improve your experience as a reviewer related to the code/data sharing in this paper?

Required for submission Students are asked to submit a response to this Google Form

Tips

Before each lecture

Check to ensure that

  • The online lecture link was sent to all course participants
  • The lecture link works correctly
  • All links within the lecture slides and/or embedded materials such as videos are working
    • If you using polling features within the lecture, ensure the feature is set up in Zoom or an alternative platform
  • All assignments from the previous week were submitted
    • 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
  • Send a reminder email the day before the lecture
    • Depending on the workload of the participants, it can be helpful to send calendar invites with the lecture dates
  • 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)

References

  1. ↑ Resources for reviewers, https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers (accessed 24 March 2025).
  2. ↑ Travitz H. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications (accessed 24 March 2025).
Retrieved from "https://peerspectives.premier.charite.de/index.php?title=Lectures&oldid=469"