Blog

Our peer review model gives early career researchers the credit they deserve  

Co-reviewing is a useful way to learn about peer review, however, not all publishers credit junior researchers, so their hard work can often go unrecognised.

We at HRB Open Research encourage supervisors to co-sign with junior researchers to not only provide a valuable training tool in peer review, but to grant junior researchers the credibility and visibility they deserve. The review reports are cited within the article itself, as well as reviewers obtaining a DOI for a review report to add to their ORCID record, ensuring that efforts and contributions are discoverable.

The discussions that took place recently during Peer Review Week on the importance of diversity and inclusion also highlighted that co-referring can make the process much more inclusive. Indeed, reviewers of different levels of seniority automatically opens the conversation to a wider diversity of thought, perspective and experience, and this can help to improve the overall quality of the review and, ultimately, the research.

Giving credit where credit is due

Approximately 27% of the articles published so far on HRB Open Research are co-reviewed and we hope this figure increases as awareness about our platform and open model of peer review grows. Below we highlight a few reports that have been co-reviewed.

Research led by Deirdre Walsh and a group from National University of Ireland describes ‘the development of the D1 Now intervention, a feasible and effective intervention based on a user-centred approach to improve health outcomes for young adults living with Type 1 Diabetes’.

It was co-reviewed by Jackie Sturt and Mette Due-Christensen, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, UK:

“Thank you for inviting us to review this paper. This paper aims to develop an intervention for young adults living with type 1 diabetes using both user-centred design methods and behavioural and psychological theory. The intervention hopes to support their self-management and increase their engagement with diabetes services.

We think this is a really well written paper and outlines the process very well. We agree with the points the 1st reviewer has made especially regarding more description of the themes in the results section.”

Shaun Treweek and Hanne Bruhn, University of Aberdeen, UK, co-reviewed a research study on patients preferred method of receiving trial results for Thyroid Hormone Replacement:

“This research article reports a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) hosted by the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypo-Thyroidism Trial (TRUST). The TRUST trial is an international trial and the SWAT was only conducted in one of the participating countries, namely Ireland. The purpose of the SWAT was to use a ‘Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) approach’ to identify and develop results reporting for the TRUST trial to its participants and subsequently evaluate the result materials. Evaluation of the result materials was carried out by assessing recipients’ understanding of the trial results compared to result materials as provided by the lead TRUST site. The SWAT protocol was published last year.

Although the study is small and has some limitations it is an important piece in the result provision literature for trials, providing the detailed account of a thorough approach to the results provision process in trials.”