Watling Christopher, Shaw Jennifer, Field Emily, Ginsburg Shiphra
Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Med Educ. 2023 Feb;57(2):151-160. doi: 10.1111/medu.14932. Epub 2022 Sep 4.
Peer review aims to provide meaningful feedback to research authors so that they may improve their work, and yet it constitutes a particularly challenging context for the exchange of feedback. We explore how research authors navigate the process of interpreting and responding to peer review feedback, in order to elaborate how feedback functions when some of the conditions thought to be necessary for it to be effective are not met.
Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we interviewed 17 recently published health professions education researchers about their experiences with the peer review process. Data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative. We used constant comparison to identify themes and to develop a conceptual model of how feedback functions in this setting.
Although participants expressed faith in peer review, they acknowledged that the process was emotionally trying and raised concerns about its consistency and credibility. These potential threats were mitigated by factors including time, team support, experience and the exercise of autonomy. Additionally, the perceived engagement of reviewers and the cultural norms and expectations surrounding the process strengthened authors' willingness and capacity to respond productively. Our analysis suggests a model of feedback within which its perceived usefulness turns on the balance of threats and countermeasures.
Feedback is a balancing act. Although threats to the productive uptake of peer review feedback abound, these threats may be neutralised by a range of countermeasures. Among these, opportunities for autonomy and cultural normalisation of both the professional responsibility to engage with feedback and the challenge of doing so may be especially influential and may have implications beyond the peer review setting.
同行评审旨在为研究作者提供有意义的反馈，以便他们改进自己的工作，但它构成了一个特别具有挑战性的反馈交流环境。我们探讨研究作者如何在解释和回应同行评审反馈的过程中进行导航，以阐述在一些被认为是反馈有效所必需的条件未得到满足时反馈是如何发挥作用的。
采用建构主义扎根理论方法，我们采访了17位近期发表过作品的卫生专业教育研究人员，了解他们在同行评审过程中的经历。数据收集和分析是同步且迭代的。我们使用持续比较来识别主题，并构建一个关于反馈在这种情况下如何发挥作用的概念模型。
尽管参与者对同行评审表示信任，但他们承认这个过程在情感上很煎熬，并对其一致性和可信度表示担忧。这些潜在威胁因时间、团队支持、经验和自主性的发挥等因素而得到缓解。此外，审稿人的参与度以及围绕该过程的文化规范和期望增强了作者积极回应的意愿和能力。我们的分析提出了一个反馈模型，其中反馈的感知有用性取决于威胁和对策的平衡。
反馈是一种平衡行为。尽管同行评审反馈的有效吸收存在诸多威胁，但这些威胁可能会被一系列对策抵消。其中，自主性的机会以及对参与反馈的职业责任和这样做的挑战进行文化规范化可能特别有影响力，并且可能对同行评审环境之外产生影响。
