Collective Conversational Peer Review of Journal Submission: A Tool to Integrate Medical Education and Practice

Abstract

Background: In this study, we demonstrate a collective collaborative, conversational, pre-publication peer review of a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, a group of research-oriented undergraduate medical and pharmacy students and their teacher collectively on an online forum, discuss and review a randomized controlled trial submitted to the Annals of Neurosciences and the explanatory commentary from each reviewer makes a basic scaffold for critical appraisal of the manuscript. Results: This method provided the opportunity for students to engage in online interactive training and allowed them to understand tools used for critical appraisal of a study. Students were incentivized by the potential publication credit and they look forward to continuing this work and perhaps providing one small step to making medical education more interactive. Conclusion: Open peer review involving a group of reviewers at a time produces multidirectional reviewing concepts, thus helps to improve the quality of paper and also may reduce the time between review and publication.