Expanding the Paediatric Urology Peer Review Pipeline: A Novel Panel and Facilitated Peer Mentorship Program

Abstract

The modern peer review process relies on review by independent experts; however, it is threatened by time constraints and increasing review demands placed on a limited number of involved individuals. To expand the pool of reviewers in paediatric urology, a joint effort was undertaken by the Journal of Urology and Journal of Paediatric Urology via a mentorship program occurring at the 2022 Paediatric Urology Fall Congress. The objective was to increase participants' knowledge and comfort with the review process. Our experience could serve as a pilot for other academic groups looking to expand their peer review pool. Overall, 39 individuals attended the program. An increase in comfort with performing a journal review was noted by 14/23 respondents (61%), with an average increase of 1.2 points on a 10-point Likert scale. The average rating of satisfaction with the journal review program on a 10-point scale was 9.7, with 77% (23/30) rating the program 10/10. When asked for specific elements of the program that participants particularly liked, the most common responses were networking with senior mentors in a small group setting and the panel discussion led by editors describing specifics of what they are looking for in a review. Previous programs with goals similar to ours have required more long-term commitment from both mentors and mentees in developing their skills as peer reviewers. Our program benefited from a short-term commitment at a large national conference. Long term results will need to be collected moving forward. However, initial feedback was positive and participants describe increased comfort and knowledge in the review process. Our program evaluation was limited by lack of validated surveys and a lack of longitudinal data on future completion of reviews. This pilot program inspired enthusiasm and increased interest in the peer review process among young paediatric urologists. This program could serve as a model for improving recruitment of peer reviewers and could impact reviewer quality.