Implementation of a novel peer review academy by Surgery and the Association of Women Surgeons

Abstract

Background: A novel Peer Review Academy was developed as a collaborative effort between the Association of Women Surgeons and the journal Surgery to provide formal training in peer review. We aimed to describe the outcomes of this initiative using a mixed methods approach.

Methods: We developed a year-long curriculum with monthly online didactic sessions. Women surgical trainee mentees were paired 1:1 with rotating women surgical faculty mentors for 3 formal peer review opportunities. We analyzed pre-course and post-course surveys to evaluate mentee perceptions of the academy and assessed changes in mentee review quality over time with blinded scoring of unedited reviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted upon course completion.

Results: Ten women surgical faculty mentors and 10 women surgical trainees from across the United States and Canada successfully completed the Peer Review Academy. There were improvements in the mentees' confidence for all domains of peer review evaluated, including overall confidence in peer review, study novelty, study design, analytic approach, and review formatting (all, P ≤ .02). The mean score of peer review quality increased over time (59.2 ± 10.8 vs 76.5 ± 9.4; P = .02). In semi-structured interviews, important elements were emphasized across the Innovation, Implementation Process, and Individuals Domains, including the values of (1) a comprehensive approach to formal peer review education; (2) mentoring relationships between women faculty and resident surgeons; and (3) increasing diversity in the scientific peer review process.

Conclusion: Our novel Peer Review Academy was feasible on a national scale, resulting in significant qualitative and quantitative improvements in women surgical trainee skillsets, and has the potential to grow and diversify the existing peer review pool.