Podder Vivek, Price Amy, Sivapuram Madhava Sai, Ronghe Ashwini, Katta Srija, Gupta Avinash Kumar, Biswas Rakesh
Undergraduate Medical Student of Tairunnessa Memorial Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Patient Editor (Research and Evaluation), The BMJ, London, United Kingdom.
Ann Neurosci. 2018 Jul;25(2):112-119. doi: 10.1159/000488135. Epub 2018 Apr 3.
In this study, we demonstrate a collective collaborative, conversational, pre-publication peer review of a randomized controlled trial.
Using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, a group of research-oriented undergraduate medical and pharmacy students and their teacher collectively on an online forum, discuss and review a randomized controlled trial submitted to the Annals of Neurosciences and the explanatory commentary from each reviewer makes a basic scaffold for critical appraisal of the manuscript.
This method provided the opportunity for students to engage in online interactive training and allowed them to understand tools used for critical appraisal of a study. Students were incentivized by the potential publication credit and they look forward to continuing this work and perhaps providing one small step to making medical education more interactive.
Open peer review involving a group of reviewers at a time produces multidirectional reviewing concepts, thus helps to improve the quality of paper and also may reduce the time between review and publication.
在本研究中，我们展示了对一项随机对照试验进行的集体协作式、对话式的预发表同行评审。
使用批判性评估技能计划清单，一组以研究为导向的本科医学和药学学生及其教师在一个在线论坛上共同讨论并评审一篇提交给《神经科学年鉴》的随机对照试验，每位评审者的解释性评论为该手稿的批判性评估搭建了一个基本框架。
这种方法为学生提供了参与在线互动培训的机会，并使他们了解用于研究批判性评估的工具。学生们受到潜在发表荣誉的激励，他们期待继续这项工作，或许能为使医学教育更具互动性迈出一小步。
一次让一组评审者参与的开放式同行评审产生了多向评审概念，从而有助于提高论文质量，也可能减少评审与发表之间的时间。
