Considering the review process as a constructive conversation

Megan Anakin, Jo Bishop, Tehmina Gladman

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearch

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The review process is central to scholarly activity in health professional education. As authors, the process can be emotionally charged, particularly if we receive unhelpful rhetorical comments from the infamous “reviewer number two”. As reviewers, we are sometimes dismayed by the gap we perceive between the standard of writing in the received manuscript and the quality expected by the journal. From our experiences as authors and reviewers, we aim to reconceptualise this gap as an opportunity for constructive conversation, building on the guidance provided by this journal (https://fohpe.org/FoHPE/about#peerReviewProcess). The review process includes submission, first review, response to feedback, a possible second round of review and response, followed by rejection or acceptance for publication. We describe our insights about how this process can be conducted as a constructive conversation between authors and reviewers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-2
Number of pages2
JournalFocus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Jun 2024

Cite this