The CUAJ trainee peer-reviewer training program

Pilot evaluation of a structured peer review curriculum for Canadian urology residents and fellows

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Peer review underpins academic publishing and represents a core scholarly competency; however, most trainees receive little structured or mentored instruction in conducting high-quality reviews. As the demand for rigorous peer review grows, journals must also cultivate the next generation of reviewers. For a society journal such as the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ), this cultivation also supports strengthening scholarly capacity within its Canadian urology community. We therefore developed and piloted the CUAJ Trainee Peer-Reviewer Training Program.

METHODS: We designed and implemented a one-year, structured, and mentored trainee peer-reviewer training program for Canadian urology residents and fellows. The program included: 1) a didactic seminar introducing principles of peer review, ethical considerations, and best practices; 2) a structured mock peer-review exercise with facilitated group feedback; and 3) completion of three mentored manuscript peer reviews under the supervision of editorial board members, with individualized feedback. Participants completed baseline and exit surveys assessing self-reported knowledge, confidence, and peer-review competencies, as well as providing feedback on the initiative using 10-point Likert scales.

RESULTS: Nine trainees completed the program. Participants reported increased familiarity with the peer-review process (median 7, interquartile range [IQR] 4–8 before vs. 9, IQR 8–10 after, p=0.02) and confidence in conducting peer review (5, IQR 4–8 before vs. 9, IQR 8–9 after, p=0.01). Improvements were also observed across multiple domains of critical appraisal and peer-review skills, including evaluation of study design, statistical methods, interpretation of results, and provision of constructive feedback. Participants reported a high likelihood of continuing to engage in peer review after the program (median 9, IQR 8–10). All participants indicated they would recommend the initiative to other trainees, and overall satisfaction with the program was high (median 9, IQR 8–10).

CONCLUSIONS: The CUAJ Trainee Peer-Reviewer Training Program was feasible and well-received by trainees. In its pilot year, the program provided structured exposure to the peer-review process and was associated with improvements in trainees’ self-reported familiarity, confidence, and comfort with evaluating key components of scientific manuscripts. This trainee-focused peer-review initiative may represent a practical and sustainable strategy to strengthen the Canadian urology reviewer pipeline while equitably introducing trainees to the principles of critical appraisal and scholarly publishing.