Dumenco Luba, Engle Deborah L, Goodell Kristen, Nagler Alisa, Ovitsh Robin K, Whicker Shari A
L. Dumenco is assistant dean for medical education, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. D.L. Engle is director of assessment, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. K. Goodell is director for innovation in medical education, Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. A. Nagler is assistant director for accreditation, validation and credentialing, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois, and adjunct associate professor, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. R.K. Ovitsh is assistant dean of clinical competencies, SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New York. S.A. Whicker is associate director, Office of Continuing Professional Development, and director, TEACH (Teaching Excellence Academy for Collaborative Healthcare), Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia.
Acad Med. 2017 Feb;92(2):147-149. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001384.
After participating in a group peer-review exercise at a workshop presented by Academic Medicine and MedEdPORTAL editors at the 2015 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical Education Meeting, the authors realized that the way their work group reviewed a manuscript was very different from the way by which they each would have reviewed the paper as an individual. Further, the group peer-review process yielded more robust feedback for the manuscript's authors than did the traditional individual peer-review process. This realization motivated the authors to reconvene and collaborate to write this Commentary to share their experience and propose the expanded use of group peer review in medical education scholarship.The authors consider the benefits of a peer-review process for reviewers, including learning how to improve their own manuscripts. They suggest that the benefits of a team review model may be similar to those of teamwork and team-based learning in medicine and medical education. They call for research to investigate this, to provide evidence to support group review, and to determine whether specific paper types would benefit most from team review (e.g., particularly complex manuscripts, those receiving widely disparate initial individual reviews). In addition, the authors propose ways in which a team-based approach to peer review could be expanded by journals and institutions. They believe that exploring the use of group peer review potentially could create a new methodology for skill development in research and scholarly writing and could enhance the quality of medical education scholarship.
在参加了由《学术医学》和MedEdPORTAL编辑在2015年美国医学院协会医学教育会议举办的研讨会上开展的小组同行评审活动后，作者们意识到他们的工作小组评审一份稿件的方式与他们各自作为个体评审该论文的方式有很大不同。此外，与传统的个人同行评审过程相比，小组同行评审过程为稿件作者提供了更有力的反馈。这一认识促使作者们再次聚到一起合作撰写这篇评论文章，分享他们的经验，并提议在医学教育学术领域更广泛地使用小组同行评审。作者们考虑了同行评审过程对评审者的益处，包括学习如何改进他们自己的稿件。他们认为团队评审模式的益处可能与医学及医学教育中的团队合作和基于团队的学习的益处相似。他们呼吁开展研究对此进行调查，以提供支持小组评审的证据，并确定特定类型的论文是否最能从团队评审中受益（例如，特别复杂的稿件、那些收到的初步个人评审差异很大的稿件）。此外，作者们提出了期刊和机构可以扩大基于团队的同行评审方法的途径。他们认为探索小组同行评审的使用可能会为研究和学术写作技能发展创造一种新方法，并提高医学教育学术的质量。
