Peers Reviewing the Peer Review Process for Manuscripts: A JACLP Workshop

Abstract: The peer-reviewed paper is widely understood as the gold standard of scholarship and a measure of academic productivity. One presumes that such papers are methodologically rigorous, use valid measures, and describe results accurately. But, how does the peer review process work?



Manuscript peer review can be daunting, especially for those without prior experience. Serving as a peer reviewer is a crucial investment in the field, but the task is unpaid, takes time, and requires thoughtful engagement. Moreover, peer reviewing can be considered an obligation to the field (especially where one personally contributes or anticipates contributing to the literature), builds evidence of a “national reputation” (which many medical schools require for academic promotion), contributes to one’s own learning (e.g., from the article, other reviewers’ comments), and connects/networks oneself with editors. How does one get comfortable with or better at the peer review process? What kind of comments are most helpful? How long should doing a peer review take? How much content expertise do I need to perform a meaningful review?



The author’s task of responding to reviewer comments is no less challenging, and many approach it with great apprehension. Can I respectfully disagree with a reviewer? How do I respond if the reviewers contradict one another? What do I do when the reviewer overlooked a point in my paper?



In collaboration with Dr. Hochang B. Lee, editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, we have developed this session to demystify the peer review experience for both parties. During the first half of the session, we will describe how to peer review a manuscript and present a new JACLP Guide for Reviewers. During the second half, we will discuss how to respond to reviewer comments. Each half of the session will have a similar structure:

1. Present a mixed nuts-and-bolts and experiential “how to” guide on the topic (didactic presentations, 10 min)

2. Facilitated breakout sessions (attendees divided into 5 small groups, 20–25 min)

1. Performing a review (first half): Distribute JACLP Guide for Reviewers, along with a brief report to review as a group.


2. Responding to reviewers (second half): Distribute a “how to” guide on being responsive to reviewer comments, along with a set of reviewer comments and various potential responses to each to critique in terms of responsiveness as a group.

3. Large-group review of take-home points and time for questions (panel discussion, 10 min)

Note: Not eligible for ASWB credit.