Undergoing Review
In the academic world, peer review involves subjecting a researcher’s scholarly work to the scrutiny of experts in the field. Peer review is a formalized process used by scientific journals, among other structures. CHSRF uses an expert review process that is in line with the merit review process we use for reviewing proposals for research grants. In particular, we invite both researchers and decision makers to review our research summaries. We primarily ask our reviewers to ensure we have not over-simplified anything in our attempt to present research in accessible, easy-to-read language. However, to make this a feasible learning activity, the questions CHSRF asks of reviewers are suggested to guide a self-review. Of course, this is not intended to diminish the importance of expert review, especially for documents intended for circulation to a broad audience.
Proposed objective
Students should undertake a self-review to challenge the conclusions they have drawn in their Mythbusters. Alternatively, students within a class may review one another’s Mythbusters.
Why undergo expert review?
Some argue peer review is too time-consuming and that mistakes pass through the process. Still, from CHSRF’s perspective, the benefits of undergoing expert review outweigh the costs and limitations. Someone with specific expertise or experience in an area is far more likely than someone without the appropriate qualifications to add important caveats and spot simple mistakes. Reviewers also add to the quality and credibility of research summaries. Of course, the quality of review depends on the ability to recruit appropriate experts.
CHSRF’s expert review process primarily seeks a balanced perspective. In other words, we seek reviewers who can offer different perspectives or views on the same topic. For example, take the Mythbuster, “Myth: Early detection is good for everyone”:77 to assess the effects of screening on patients as well as the overall costs associated with this, it was important to engage a range of perspectives, including that of an epidemiologist, a family physician and a decision maker, in the review process.
Review questions
CHSRF asks reviewers to ensure we have not over-simplified anything in our attempt to present research in accessible language. In the review process, it is important to ask:
- Has the summary effectively captured the essence of the major issues and not lost critical concepts through over-simplification? Has the summary missed or misrepresented any of the research in its attempt to make it more accessible?
- A major function of a research summary is to make research accessible and in easy-to-read language, so ask “Is the summary written conversationally and in a way that is accessible to the target audience?”
- As with peer review, it is appropriate that referees inform the author of any conflicts of interest that may arise. In the same way, it may be inappropriate to select reviewers that are the authors’ close friends or colleagues. So always ask: “Are there particular biases that I or any reviewer brings to the table that make it inappropriate for me to review?”
- Research summaries often require a balanced perspective, so ask “Have I considered all of the different perspectives or views that exist for this topic?”