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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1-2 |
Number of pages | 2 |
Journal | Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal |
Volume | 25 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 28 Jun 2024 |