Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action

Overview

Journal Can J Kidney Health Dis

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2022 May 6

PMID 35514878

Authors

Catherine M Clase

Elizabeth Dicks

Rachel Holden

Manish M Sood

Adeera Levin

Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh

Linda W Moore

Susan J Bartlett

Aminu K Bello

Clara Bohm

Darren Bridgewater

Josee Bouchard

Dylan Burger

Juan Jesus Carrero

Maoliosa Donald

Meghan Elliott

Maya J Goldenberg

Meg Jardine

Ngan N Lam

W Joy Maddigan

Francois Madore

Thomas A Mavrakanas

Amber O Molnar

G V Ramesh Prasad

Claudio Rigatto

Karthik K Tennankore

Elena Torban

Laurel Trainor

Christine A White

Sunny Hartwig

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Peer review aims to select articles for publication and to improve articles before publication. We believe that this process can be infused by kindness without losing rigor. In 2014, the founding editorial team of the (CJKHD) made an explicit commitment to treat authors as we would wish to be treated ourselves. This broader group of authors reaffirms this principle, for which we suggest the terminology "supportive review."

Citing Articles

Call to action: "no charge to submit or to publish".

Bakkaloglu S Pediatr Nephrol. 2023; 38(8):2507-2508.

PMID: 36881170 DOI: 10.1007/s00467-023-05914-0.

Fostering the Next Generation of Researchers: a Sustainable Mentoring Program for Early Career Toxicologists in Scientific Abstract Review.

Mycyk M, Murphy C, Chary M, Chai P, Dunavin A, Meyn A J Med Toxicol. 2023; 19(2):224-227.

PMID: 36879004 PMC: 10050293. DOI: 10.1007/s13181-023-00938-2.

Our commitment to rigorous, constructive and inclusive peer review.

Nat Rev Nephrol. 2022; 18(7):407.

PMID: 35501395 DOI: 10.1038/s41581-022-00569-w.

References

. Building and supporting identity in peer review. Cell. 2021; 184(20):5071-5072. PMC: 9522471. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.09.017. View

Tarkang E, Bain L . The bane of publishing a research article in international journals by African researchers, the peer-review process and the contentious issue of predatory journals: a commentary. Pan Afr Med J. 2019; 32:119. PMC: 6560955. DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2019.32.119.18351. View

Lipworth W, Kerridge I, Carter S, Little M . Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 72(7):1056-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002. View

Severin A, Martins J, Heyard R, Delavy F, Jorstad A, Egger M . Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(8):e035058. PMC: 7440717. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035058. View

Alam M . How to review a manuscript. Dermatol Surg. 2015; 41(8):883-8. DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000421. View

Song E, Ang L, Park J, Jun E, Kim K, Jun J . A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers. PLoS One. 2021; 16(5):e0251440. PMC: 8136639. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251440. View

Robinson J, Agne R . Kindness, gentility, and rejection: an analysis of 99 manuscript reviews. Health Commun. 2010; 25(6-7):504-11. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2010.496530. View

Fontanarosa P, Flanagin A, Ayanian J, Bonow R, Bressler N, Christakis D . Equity and the JAMA Network. JAMA. 2021; 326(7):618-620. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.9377. View

Ende J . Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983; 250(6):777-81. View

10.

. Science Has a Racism Problem. Cell. 2020; 181(7):1443-1444. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.009. View

11.

Barton G . Peer review of statistics in medical research. Reviewers' contributions should be thoughtful, constructive, and encouraging. BMJ. 2002; 325(7362):491. View

12.

Wenneras C, Wold A . Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997; 387(6631):341-3. DOI: 10.1038/387341a0. View

13.

Burns K, Levin A, Fowler E, Butcher L, Turcotte M, Makarchuk M . The KRESCENT Program (2005-2015): An Evaluation of the State of Kidney Research Training in Canada. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2017; 4:2054358117693354. PMC: 5317037. DOI: 10.1177/2054358117693354. View

14.

. Our commitment to rigorous, constructive and inclusive peer review. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2022; 18(7):407. DOI: 10.1038/s41581-022-00569-w. View

15.

Hamilton D, Fraser H, Hoekstra R, Fidler F . Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review. Elife. 2020; 9. PMC: 7717900. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.62529. View

16.

. Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation. Nature. 2020; 582(7812):314. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-01622-z. View

17.

Dutta M . The ten commandments of reviewing: the promise of a kinder, gentler discipline!. Health Commun. 2006; 20(2):197-200. DOI: 10.1207/s15327027hc2002_11. View

18.

Kharasch E, Avram M, Clark J, Davidson A, Houle T, Levy J . Peer Review Matters: Research Quality and the Public Trust. Anesthesiology. 2021; 134(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003608. View

19.

Clements J . Don't be a prig in peer review. Nature. 2020; 585(7825):472. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-02512-0. View

20.

Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I . Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature. 2014; 515(7528):480-2. DOI: 10.1038/515480a. View