The Student Editorial Board of Methods of Information in Medicine

Summary

Objective : Peer review is a critical process in the publication of scientific findings; trainees and young investigators, however, have few opportunities to learn systematically how to review manuscripts. Journal editors have an opportunity to engage trainees and young investigators in the peer review process early during their career.

Methods : Methods of Information in Medicine, an official journal of the International Medical Informatics Association, is initiating a Student Editorial Board. The journal invites applications from international graduate and post-doctoral training programs that have a focus on health informatics, biomedical informatics, or a related field.

Results : Each year up to six trainees will be invited to join the Student Editorial Board. The trainees will go through a mentored training experience that includes an active involvement in the various aspects of peer review during their one to two-year term of appointment.

Conclusions : The journal expects that the Student Editorial Board will benefit trainees and young investigators in becoming skilled reviewers and engaged peers who can offer professional, constructive, and informative feedback and enhance the process of scientific communication.

Keywords

Education - medical informatics - peer review - periodicals

• References

• 1. Merriam-Webster Online Search (database on the Internet).. © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, USA (accessed: October 10, 2007). Available from: http://www.webster.com
• 2. Bourne PE, Korngreen A. Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Comput Biol 2006; 2 (09) e110.
• 3. Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185 (04) 848-854.
• 4. Callaham ML, Schriger DL. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40 (03) 323-328.
• 5. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328 7441 673.
• 6. Shea JA. Reviewer’s Recommendation. Acad Med 2001; 76 (952) 952-953.
• 7. Ammenwerth E, Wolff AC, Knaup P, Ulmer H, Skonetzki S, van Bemmel JH, McCray AT, Haux R, Kulikowski C. Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (05) 512-514.
• 8. BMJ British Medical Journal (home page on the Internet).. © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd (accessed: October 23, 2007). Available from: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/reviewers/training-materials
• 9. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA 2002; 287 (21) 2781-2783.
• 10. Lee A, Dennis C, Campbell P. Nature’s guide for mentors. Nature 2007; 447 7146 791-797.
• 11. Pernetta AP. Mentors could support a student reviewer database. Nature 2007; 448 7150 129.
• 12. Johnson KB, Miller RA. The JAMiA Student Editorial Board: peer review education in biomedical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (01) 87-88.