Review process: an academic responsibility that facilitates active and peer learning

Abstract

Involving these emerging researchers in the peer review process promotes peer learning through the reviewing experience and the constructive feedback they receive from experienced reviewers and our editorial board. Recent studies in higher education pedagogy indicate that active learning, such as performing and analysing tasks, enhances learning at the advanced stages of the structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy.1 This taxonomy classifies learning outcomes according to the complexity of a student’s or professional’s understanding.2 Research demonstrates that active learning techniques are more effective in helping individuals advance through the levels of this taxonomy in, for example, a specific subject, than passive methods like attending lectures on the subject by promoting relational and abstract thinking.1 Consequently, the review process is an excellent opportunity for active learning within one’s field. The academic review process goes beyond just a responsibility; it fosters active peer learning as part of the ongoing journey of continuous and life-long education to which we are dedicated as researchers and clinicians.3 Additionally, you will gain insights from the latest evidence even before it is published!

Correspondence to Professor Evert Verhagen; [email protected]

Ask yourself when you last contributed as a reviewer

Consider submitting your latest research, the product of hours of dedication over several months or even years. You hope it will endure critical evaluation, significantly contribute to your field, and inspire further questions. And then, you are faced with significant delays in a journal’s feedback or a begrudging reviewer dissecting your work, if not both. We have all been there; if not, we will likely encounter this somewhere along the line.

At BOSEM, we want to avoid such encounters by providing honest, thorough manuscript peer reviews. However, the academic peer review process is under pressure. We need colleagues willing to provide an extra pair of expert eyes and offer feedback to ensure that our methods are reported soundly, our conclusions are reliable and our study’s limitations are acknowledged. Yet, it is not uncommon for us—as editors—to receive 20 or more declines on reviewer invitations. It is frustrating not only for us but also for you as an author.

At BOSEM, we adhere to a simple principle in our peer review process: treat others’ work the way you want yours treated. When you submit a paper seeking a prompt and thorough review, consider when you last contributed as a reviewer. Successful peer review depends on reciprocity. By providing the same level of attention we desire, we foster a culture of mutual respect and academic excellence. So, what is stopping you?

Do you need to be an experienced researcher?

There is a common belief that only senior researchers are qualified to review papers. We highly appreciate senior researchers’ expertise in the review process and acknowledge their critical role in upholding the quality of research published in BOSEM. However, we also recognise the significance of bringing younger colleagues, like PhD and master’s students, into the sports and exercise medicine community. Involving these emerging researchers in the peer review process promotes peer learning through the reviewing experience and the constructive feedback they receive from experienced reviewers and our editorial board.

What is in it for me?

Recent studies in higher education pedagogy indicate that active learning, such as performing and analysing tasks, enhances learning at the advanced stages of the structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy.¹ This taxonomy classifies learning outcomes according to the complexity of a student’s or professional’s understanding.² Research demonstrates that active learning techniques are more effective in helping individuals advance through the levels of this taxonomy in, for example, a specific subject, than passive methods like attending lectures on the subject by promoting relational and abstract thinking.¹ Consequently, the review process is an excellent opportunity for active learning within one’s field.

Clinicians and athletes voice

Another important aspect of BMJ is involving patients and the public in research. As an open-access journal dedicated to clinical messages, we also welcome valuable insights from clinicians in the review process who can share their practical views on the feasibility and applicability of a manuscript since they will likely implement the proposed methods or interventions. Furthermore, incorporating perspectives from athletes and patients proves beneficial for specific types of papers, such as position statements, consensus statements and study protocols. This inclusion helps identify challenges and enhances adherence to assessment, prevention strategies and treatment methods.

A ‘win-win’ situation for all

In summary, academic review is crucial, but it faces challenges due to competing priorities in a fast-paced and demanding environment. At BOSEM, we are proud of our prompt response times and are sincerely thankful for our reviewers’ efforts. However, we acknowledge that a small portion of our community carries a significant workload. To help distribute this workload, we invite our broader community to join us in ensuring we can continue publishing high-quality, impactful manuscripts. The academic review process goes beyond just a responsibility; it fosters active peer learning as part of the ongoing journey of continuous and life-long education to which we are dedicated as researchers and clinicians.³ Additionally, you will gain insights from the latest evidence even before it is published!

As editors, we have a responsibility to implement a robust review process. BMJ (our mother publishing company) offers detailed guidelines,⁴ and at BOSEM, we have a detailed reviewer guide and editorial assistance accessible to all our reviewers (online supplemental material). We aim to give personalised attention to every paper and reviewer. Our goal is to maintain open communication with reviewers, and we are dedicated to improving this aspect within BOSEM’s editorial team. As a BOSEM reviewer, you enjoy a 25% discount on submissions. To further recognise the invaluable contributions of our reviewers, we will introduce an annual review award in 2025. This award will honour and celebrate the outstanding efforts of our reviewers in promoting research in sports and exercise medicine. Stay tuned!

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Footnote

X @KristinaFagher, @evertverhagen

Contributors KF and EV equally provided input to the conception and writing of this editorial. EV is the guarantor of this editorial.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests EV is the editor-in-chief of BMJ Open SEM. KF is an associate editor at BMJ Open SEM.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

References

¹ Biggs J, Collis K. Evaluating the quality of learning. Elsevier, 1982.

² Biggs J, Biggs JB, Tang CS, et al. Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press, 2022.

³ Patricios J, Kemp J, Thornton JS, et al. Nuisance or necessity? Why robust peer review is critical for medical science. Br J Sports Med 2021; 55: 1063–4. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104126

⁴ BMJ. Resources for reviewers. 2024. Available: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers