WS2-03: COMPLETING AN EFFECTIVE REVIEW OF A JOURNAL SUBMISSION
Michael Hulme, PhD¹, Jeremy Lipman, MD²; ¹Wake Forest School of Medicine, ²Cleveland Clinic
Committee on Curriculum

Introduction: Based on anecdotal evidence observed by a reviewer and/or associate editor for the Journal of Surgical Education (JSE), the American Journal of Surgery (AJS), and MedEdPORTAL (MEP), reviews of articles submitted to those journals are frequently less rigorous than is appropriate for determining their suitability for publication in these peer-reviewed journals.

This 90 minute workshop will provide participants with the knowledge and skills required to perform thorough reviews of submissions in accordance with the Glassick criteria for assessing the quality of scholarship, and reflective of the guidelines for reviews provided by specific journals.

Educational objectives: This workshop will provide participants with the knowledge and skills to

• Explain and justify the use of Glassick criteria for assessing the quality of scholarship.
• Demonstrate awareness of the criteria for assessing journal submissions published by one specific peer-reviewed journal listed above (JSE, AJS, MEP)
• Complete a thorough review of a submission, including a recommendation to the journal’s editor.

Methods: This 90 minute workshop for a maximum of 30 participants will commence with a didactic introduction to the Glassick criteria for assessing the quality of scholarship. This will be followed by a dialectic in which a faculty facilitator will guide participants through a review that has already been completed for a sample submission, including identification of specific recommendations for the submission authors to improve their manuscript. Next, participants will form into small groups of 4 or 5; each group will perform a review of a second proposed submission, with guidance from a workshop faculty facilitator. Finally, each group will report the most salient findings expressed in its review, including, where appropriate, specific recommendations for revision. These findings will be compared and contrasted with the findings from the other groups.

This workshop complements a submission by the Assessment & Evaluation committee for a panel session / question and answer session in which journal editors / reviewers will present their perspectives on their expectations for acceptable reviews. While each submission stands alone, participants might derive the most benefit from attending both.