Learned Publishing最新文献

{"title":"Where Will AI Take Scholarly Communication? Voices From the Research Frontline","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Marzena Swigon,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2008","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Early career researchers (ECRs) are in an ideal position to soothsay. Yet, much of what we know about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) comes from vested interest groups, such as publishers, tech companies and industry leaders, which are strong on hyperbole, are superficial and, at best, narrow surveys. This paper seeks to redress this by providing deep empirical data from researchers, allowing us to hear researchers' views and ‘voices’. The data comes from a project, which focuses on the impact of AI on scholarly communications. From this study, we report on the perceived transformations to the scholarly communications system by AI and other forces. We were especially interested in discovering what future ECRs foresaw for the established pillars of the system—journals and libraries. The interview-based study covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. The main findings being that while the large majority thought there would be a transformation there was no consensus as to what a transformation would look like, but there was agreement on it being one shaped by AI. The future appears rosy for journals, but less so for libraries and, importantly, for most ECRs, too.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143822299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking How We Publish to Support Open Science","authors":"Véronique Kiermer,&nbsp;Alison Mudditt,&nbsp;Niamh O'Connor","doi":"10.1002/leap.2006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2006","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;With the advent of the digital age, the way we create and consume information is changing. New ways of capturing and communicating the research process digitally give us the opportunity to honour the norms of open science by showcasing and enabling the re-use of a much broader range of contributions to research. This was widely predicted when the first journals appeared online but has taken longer to materialise than many anticipated.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Research workflows have been transformed over the past few decades by the ability to gather ever growing datasets, to analyse them with ever increasing computing power, and to collaborate online. Scholarly publishing, however, has by and large lagged behind. While publications are now processed and distributed largely digitally, the publishing workflows, outputs, and fundamental concepts have largely remained artefacts of print publications.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Change is both needed and imminent. Journals have served as guarantors of quality through editorial oversight and peer review, and there is comfort in maintaining this view. However, by 20th century norms, this gatekeeping generally meant publishing only those authors and outputs with familiar credentials. This is reminiscent of those who resisted early printing presses on the grounds that they cheapened knowledge and threatened religious authority (Quocirca &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). It is neither realistic nor desirable. Communicating research today requires expanding this view. We believe a more useful approach is to reimagine how we assess and share research, as well as how we enable discovery and reuse, while fully embracing the principles of open science.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Open science is about more than being able to read an article. It is about providing the right context to understand it, the resources to replicate the work, and the tools to collaborate and make science better. It is also about broadening participation in knowledge creation, dissemination, and reuse. We have an opportunity to make a move away from the legacy constraints of the physical format and take advantage of the opportunities provided by a digital world to support the advancement of usable, trustworthy knowledge and enable global participation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (UNESCO &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;) “outlines a common definition, shared values, principles and standards for open science at the international level and proposes a set of actions conducive to a fair and equitable operationalization of open science for all.” Ultimately, open science is a set of principles and practices that allows science to be conducted according to its norms and “as a common good”. The UNESCO definition adds to that of the US National Academies (&lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;), emphasising the need for diversity of participation in order to achieve the more reliable and effective knowledge creation that open science promises.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The inception of PLOS was inspired by developments in scientific and information tech","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143822298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bridging the Gender Gap in African Scientific Publishing: Insights From Web of Science Indexed Journals","authors":"Zakaria Elouaourti,&nbsp;Imane Elouardighi,&nbsp;Aomar Ibourk","doi":"10.1002/leap.2007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2007","url":null,"abstract":"<p>African women researchers represent a minority within Africa's scientific community, accounting for 29.3%—a figure significantly lower than in other regions: 39% in Europe, 41% in Asia, 43% in South America, and 44% in North America. Moreover, this low participation rate masks intra-African disparities, with some Sub-Saharan African countries exhibiting particularly low percentages, such as Chad (3.35%), Guinea (9.81%) and Togo (11.47%), reflecting significant gender imbalances (UNESCO). This study examines the participation of African women in scientific publications, focusing on differences between social sciences and exact sciences, as well as regional disparities between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. It aims to identify key challenges and propose actions to enhance the presence of African women researchers in high-impact journals. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study analyses a micro-level database of African publications from 2010 (30,455 articles) and 2022 (137,566 articles) retrieved from Web of Science (WoS) indexed journals. Additionally, qualitative insights are drawn from interviews with African women researchers. The quantitative analysis reveals a modest increase in female authorship from 29% in 2010 to 32% in 2022, aligning with UNESCO's statistics (2022). While progress has been observed, disparities persist across scientific disciplines. Notably, female participation in exact sciences has grown significantly, with Engineering and Technology rising from 16% to 21%, Physical Sciences from 19% to 23%, and Life Sciences and Biomedicine from 29% to 35%. In contrast, gains in social sciences were more modest, with Arts and Humanities remaining stable at 28% and Social Sciences increasing slightly from 26% to 28%. Regional variations are also evident, with South Africa and Egypt leading in contributions. Qualitative interviews highlight barriers such as gender bias, financial constraints, and limited institutional support, which continue to hinder women's academic progression. This study is the first to conduct a granular article-level analysis of African women's participation in WoS-indexed journals, employing innovative methods to infer author gender and utilising text mining techniques for qualitative analysis. Its findings provide critical insights for policymakers and academic institutions striving to promote gender equity in African research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143818715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is Editors' Awareness of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) a Determinant of the Journal's Contribution to SDGs?","authors":"Gul Hatice Tarakcioglu Celik,&nbsp;Seher Basaran-Acil","doi":"10.1002/leap.2005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2005","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study aimed to investigate the awareness of the editors-in-chief as the leaders of the publishing team of the journals indexed in the health sciences field in the national index (TR-Index) about Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the publishing field. The data were collected using Google Forms from editors-in-chief between January and June 2023. The study was completed with 55 editors-in-chief. The first three publishing areas of the articles are medicine, nursing, and health sciences. The result shows that the articles published by TR-Index journals contribute to all SDGs. The goals to which the most contributions were made are SDG3 (good health and well-being), SDG4 (quality education), and SDG5 (gender equality). Four of these journals have signed the SDGs Publisher Compact. The SDGs awareness of journal editors was high, and editors' awareness does not vary according to journals' (such as publication language, SDGs publication policy, knowledge about the SDG Publisher Compact, etc.) and editors' characteristics (such as age, gender, title etc.). Journal editors and publication policies will contribute to raising the awareness of researchers, readers, and other stakeholders about the SDGs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143793368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/leap.2003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2003","url":null,"abstract":"<p>\u0000 <span>Stompor, T.</span>, <span>Pampel, H.</span>, <span>Boltze-Fütterer, J.</span>, and <span>Rusch, B.</span>. <span>2025</span>. “ <span>DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany</span>.” <i>Learned Publishing</i> <span>38</span>: e70000. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.70000.\u0000 </p><p>In the paper by Stompor et al., “Heinz Pampel” has been listed as corresponding author.</p><p>We apologise for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143689106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Early Career Researchers on all Aspects of Peer Review: A Deep Dive Into the Data","authors":"David Nicholas,&nbsp;Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo,&nbsp;Abdullah Abrizah,&nbsp;Eti Herman,&nbsp;Jorge Revez,&nbsp;Marzena Świgoń,&nbsp;David Clark,&nbsp;Jie Xu,&nbsp;Anthony Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/leap.2002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2002","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs) and their work life and scholarly communications began by studying generational—Millennial—change (H-1), then moved to pandemic change (H-2) and is now investigating another change agent—artificial intelligence (AI). This paper from the study constitutes a deep dive into the peer review attitudes and practices of 91 international ECRs from all disciplines. Depth interviews were the main means by which data was collected, and questions covered ECRs as reviewers, authors and readers, and are described in their own words. Main findings are: (1) ECRs proved to be a highly experienced in peer review; (2) There is more trust in peer review than distrust in it, but there are concerns; (3) Peer review is something that arts and humanities ECRs are unfamiliar with or much concerned about; (4) A sizeable majority of ECRs thought peer review could be improved, with anonymity/double-blind reviewing topping the list; (5) The majority view was that AI will have an impact on peer review and that it would be beneficial; (6) little has changed since the last Harbingers study, except for AI, which is seen to be transformative. We believe that few studies have drilled down so deeply and widely in respect to ECRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143689105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Are Journals and Reviewers Concerned About in Data Papers? Evidence From Journal Guidelines and Review Reports","authors":"Xinyu Wang,&nbsp;Lei Xu","doi":"10.1002/leap.2001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2001","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The evolution of data journals and the increase in data papers call for associated peer review, which is intricately linked yet distinct from traditional scientific paper review. This study investigates the data paper review guidelines of 22 scholarly journals that publish data papers and analyses 131 data papers' review reports from the journal <i>Data</i>. Peer review is an essential part of scholarly publishing. Although the 22 data journals employ disparate review models, their review purposes and requirements exhibit similarities. Journal guidelines provide authors and reviewers with comprehensive references for reviewing, which cover the entire life cycle of data. Reviewer attitudes predominantly encompass Suggestion, Inquiry, Criticism and Compliment during the specific review process, focusing on 18 key targets including manuscript writing, diagram presentation, data process and analysis, references and review and so forth. In addition, objective statements and other general opinions are also identified. The findings show the distinctive characteristics of data publication assessment and summarise the main concerns of journals and reviewers regarding the evaluation of data papers.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.2001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143622577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Existence of Stealth Corrections in Scientific Literature—A Threat to Scientific Integrity","authors":"René Aquarius,&nbsp;Floris Schoeters,&nbsp;Nick Wise,&nbsp;Alex Glynn,&nbsp;Guillaume Cabanac","doi":"10.1002/leap.1660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1660","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;One of the cornerstones of publication integrity is the thorough maintenance of the scientific record to ensure the trustworthiness of its content. This includes strict and transparent record-keeping when implementing post-publication changes through a clearly visible corrigendum or erratum, which provides details of the changes and the reasons for them (ICMJE &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, such record-keeping is not always practised as &lt;i&gt;stealth changes&lt;/i&gt;, post-publication changes to the scientific literature without any accompanying note, have been observed. One notable kind of a stealth change is a &lt;i&gt;stealth retraction&lt;/i&gt;: published papers simply disappearing from the website of a journal without a formal retraction notice (Teixeira da Silva &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;; Teixeira da Silva and Daly &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Besides stealth retractions, a second problematic type of stealth change exists in the scientific literature: &lt;i&gt;stealth corrections&lt;/i&gt;. We define a stealth correction as at least one post-publication change made to a scientific article, without providing a correction note or any other indicator that the publication was temporarily or permanently altered.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stealth corrections in the scientific literature have occasionally been described by online blogs (Bimler &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Schneider &lt;span&gt;2020&lt;/span&gt;), but the scientific literature itself has yet to address the numerous stealth corrections in its own corpus. In this article, we provide examples of such stealth corrections.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We found a total of 131 published articles that were affected by stealth corrections, across a variety of large and small publishers (Table 1). In most cases, the content of the articles was changed (Table 2). An overview of all stealth corrections (# 1-131) can be found in Table S1, which also contains the links to all accompanying PubPeer posts for additional detail. Five articles with stealth corrections eventually received an official correction notice and 17 articles were reverted to their original version (Table S1). Nine expressions of concern were published, and 11 articles were eventually retracted (Table S1). Additionally, seven book chapters were removed (Table S1).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The stealth corrections presented in this paper demonstrate a fundamental and mostly ignored problem in the scientific literature. Correct documentation and transparency are of the utmost importance to uphold scientific integrity and the trustworthiness of science. Post-publication changes need to be clear for readers to understand if, and why, changes have been made. However, little attention is paid to post-publication alterations. For example, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides clear flowcharts indicating that a published correction is needed in case of: post-publication plagiarism (# 20) (COPE &lt;span&gt;2021b&lt;/span&gt;), post-publication author removal (# 2-9) (COPE &lt;span&gt;2021a&lt;/span&gt;) or inappropriate image manipulation in a published article (","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1660","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143439200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany","authors":"Tomasz Stompor,&nbsp;Heinz Pampel,&nbsp;Julia Boltze-Fütterer,&nbsp;Beate Rusch","doi":"10.1002/leap.70000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.70000","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Open access is shaped as part of the innovation policy in the European Union and has been promoted by the European Commission (&lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;) and member states (Council of the European Union &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;) through various policy measures. The goal is to publish the scholarly output of research institutions, namely publicly funded universities and non-university research institutions, as open access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Germany, open access is supported by a wide range of activities. Beginning with the signing of the “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities” in 2003 (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft &lt;span&gt;2003&lt;/span&gt;), all major German research organisations have committed to the promotion of open access. Since the early 2000s, libraries have started operating open access repositories and publication platforms, establishing open access as a service at scientific institutions (Scholze &lt;span&gt;2005&lt;/span&gt;). Since the mid-2010s, with the increasing provision of open-access journals from commercial publishers, the financing of Article Processing Charges (APCs) has come into focus for research institutions in Germany (Eppelin et al. &lt;span&gt;2012&lt;/span&gt;). Many institutions also operate institutional open access publishing services, such as presses and platforms for open access journals (Arning et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Politically, Open Access is supported by the federal government and the states in Germany. The “Joint Guidelines of the Federal Government and the Länder” published in 2023 outlines the political framework and emphasises the importance of cooperation in implementing the open access transformation (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;). Several federal states in Germany have adopted dedicated open access strategies. In some cases, specific indicators have also been formulated. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research plans that by the year 2025, 70% of all new scientific publications in Germany will be published exclusively or additionally via open access (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;). Both gold open access and green open access are recognised as complementary and equally valuable strategies for open access in Germany (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Due to federalism in science policy, some federal states have established their own open access policies. One example is the open access policy of the state of Berlin from 2016, which defined an open access indicator for the academic institutions in Berlin. The target was a 60% share of open access publications in the publication output of academic institutions in Berlin in 2020 (Senat von Berlin &lt;span&gt;2015&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Currently, the organisation of the transformation process is central to open access activities at universities and non-university research institutions. The recommendation of the German Science and Humanities Council, which advises the federal","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.70000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143423639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Expanding the Paediatric Urology Peer Review Pipeline: A Novel Panel and Facilitated Peer Mentorship Program","authors":"Michael Ernst,&nbsp;Christopher Jaeger,&nbsp;Caleb P. Nelson,&nbsp;Stacy Tanaka,&nbsp;Jennifer Regala,&nbsp;Christina Ching","doi":"10.1002/leap.1664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1664","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The modern peer review process relies on review by independent experts; however, it is threatened by time constraints and increasing review demands placed on a limited number of involved individuals. To expand the pool of reviewers in paediatric urology, a joint effort was undertaken by the <i>Journal of Urology</i> and <i>Journal of Paediatric Urology</i> via a mentorship program occurring at the 2022 Paediatric Urology Fall Congress. The objective was to increase participants' knowledge and comfort with the review process. Our experience could serve as a pilot for other academic groups looking to expand their peer review pool. Overall, 39 individuals attended the program. An increase in comfort with performing a journal review was noted by 14/23 respondents (61%), with an average increase of 1.2 points on a 10-point Likert scale. The average rating of satisfaction with the journal review program on a 10-point scale was 9.7, with 77% (23/30) rating the program 10/10. When asked for specific elements of the program that participants particularly liked, the most common responses were networking with senior mentors in a small group setting and the panel discussion led by editors describing specifics of what they are looking for in a review. Previous programs with goals similar to ours have required more long-term commitment from both mentors and mentees in developing their skills as peer reviewers. Our program benefited from a short-term commitment at a large national conference. Long term results will need to be collected moving forward. However, initial feedback was positive and participants describe increased comfort and knowledge in the review process. Our program evaluation was limited by lack of validated surveys and a lack of longitudinal data on future completion of reviews. This pilot program inspired enthusiasm and increased interest in the peer review process among young paediatric urologists. This program could serve as a model for improving recruitment of peer reviewers and could impact reviewer quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1664","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143380613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}