Peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. It provides the author with practical advice to improve the quality of his/her manuscript and requires the reviewer to have analytical, specialized, and applied knowledge on the subject matter. In addition, peer review aids in career development, improves the reviewer’s own writing skills, and increases the reviewer’s knowledge of their field.
Often anonymous and voluntary, peer review is vital nonetheless and at Wiley we’re continually seeking ways to recognize and reward the contributions peer reviewers make. For journals in the health sciences, many peer reviewers are practicing physicians with significant demands on their time, including the need to regularly meet continuing education requirements.
To recognize learning already taking place in a way that furthers their education requirements and rewards reviewers for their invaluable input, Wiley now offers a Continuing Medical Education (CME) for Reviewers program which awards AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ to physician peer reviewers, through the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME). The primary goal of Wiley’s ACCME-accredited providership (established in 1992) is the enhancement of medical knowledge through the dissemination of research and its clinical implications, resulting in improvements toward the quality of patient care and professional practice. Participating in peer review enhances the reviewer’s medical knowledge by providing reviewers with access to information on the latest research findings.
Our initial pilot included Transfusion, the official journal of the AABB. Anne Eder, MD, CME Editor of Transfusion, indicated that reviewers may be “willing to get involved with manuscript review” with the addition of the CME program, as it could alleviate the challenges “to motivate even well-published, but busy professionals as reviewers.” Additionally, Dr. Eder “expects the primary benefit will be in reviewer recruitment and retention,” with the secondary benefit of “contribut[ing] to the quality of reviews—as reviewers realize they are being awarded credit, they might spend a little extra effort on their reviews. Conversely, reviewers who are denied credit might seek to improve their critiques.”
Look out for our post tomorrow on the full results of our initial pilot.
More peer review resources are available at www.wileypeerreview.com.
Image Credit: Fuse/Getty Images