Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A popular, day-long course on peer review was hosted annually 2002–2005 by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group US Project (CEVG@US), with support from the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. In July 2011 we launched a free-of-charge, online version of the course, Translating Critical Appraisal of a Manuscript to Meaningful Peer Review.
Objectives: To describe the CEVG@US online course for training peer reviewers and to report usage statistics in the first 9 months of launching the course.
Methods: An international group of journal editors, clinicians, epidemiologists, and statisticians assembled to record lectures. The slidecast includes an overview of the editorial peer review process (Part 1), and how to critically appraise manuscripts of various study designs (Part 2). The 7.5-hour course, offered through Johns Hopkins, comprises 12 lectures and is targeted to health professionals. Participants must register to enroll in the course, providing minimal participant information. Two evaluation surveys are administered to registrants, one completed before beginning the course (‘before’ survey) and one completed after the final module (‘after’ survey).
Results: As of April 2012, 412 people from over 45 countries have enrolled in the course. Of those enrolled, 211 (51%) completed the 20-question ‘before’ survey and 201 (49%) accessed at least one lecture (Table 1). Twenty-seven people accessed all lectures and completed the 10-question ‘after’ survey. Feedback from those completing the course has been positive (Table 2).
Conclusions: The enrollment and pre-course survey may present an initial barrier to proceeding, since only half of those registered go on to access lecture slidecasts. In the future, we will attempt to determine whether the small number completing all lectures is a negative reflection on content, the nature of the community’s need, or something else. We will pursue broader dissemination of the course, assess feedback received, and work more closely with journals.
Objectives: To describe the CEVG@US online course for training peer reviewers and to report usage statistics in the first 9 months of launching the course.
Methods: An international group of journal editors, clinicians, epidemiologists, and statisticians assembled to record lectures. The slidecast includes an overview of the editorial peer review process (Part 1), and how to critically appraise manuscripts of various study designs (Part 2). The 7.5-hour course, offered through Johns Hopkins, comprises 12 lectures and is targeted to health professionals. Participants must register to enroll in the course, providing minimal participant information. Two evaluation surveys are administered to registrants, one completed before beginning the course (‘before’ survey) and one completed after the final module (‘after’ survey).
Results: As of April 2012, 412 people from over 45 countries have enrolled in the course. Of those enrolled, 211 (51%) completed the 20-question ‘before’ survey and 201 (49%) accessed at least one lecture (Table 1). Twenty-seven people accessed all lectures and completed the 10-question ‘after’ survey. Feedback from those completing the course has been positive (Table 2).
Conclusions: The enrollment and pre-course survey may present an initial barrier to proceeding, since only half of those registered go on to access lecture slidecasts. In the future, we will attempt to determine whether the small number completing all lectures is a negative reflection on content, the nature of the community’s need, or something else. We will pursue broader dissemination of the course, assess feedback received, and work more closely with journals.
