OP0305 THE EMERGING EULAR NETWORK (EMEUNET) PEER-REVIEW MENTORING PROGRAM: TEN YEARS OF INITIATIVE

Autor: L. M. Verhoef, A. Vivekanantham, A. Berti, E. C. Bolek, H. T. Smeele, M. Oztas, S. Shoop-Worrall, S. S. Zhao, F. Rivellese, K. Lauper, S. Piantoni
Rok vydání: 2022
Předmět:
Zdroj: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 81:202.1-203
ISSN: 1468-2060
0003-4967
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-eular.1877
Popis: BackgroundIn 2012, the Emerging EULAR (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology) Network (EMEUNET) started a mentoring program in collaboration with the editorial board of top-leading journals in rheumatology, the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and a few years later RMD Open, with the aim of improving peer reviewing skills of young researchers (mentees).1 In this program, now in its 6th edition, senior reviewers (mentors) critically discuss manuscripts submitted to ARD or RMD Open with mentees. At the end of the program, senior reviewers certify the capability of mentees to independently conduct a good quality review. The program is organized by members of the EMEUNET Peer Mentoring Subcommittee, including facilitating communication within the groups. Several strategies, such as face-to-face meetings and periodic videoconferences, were implemented recently, following the outcome of a previous survey among mentees.1ObjectivesTo assess the experienced benefits and challenges of the EMEUNET Peer Mentoring program of young rheumatologists and researchers and their mentors.MethodsIn November 2021, a survey was sent by email to mentors and mentees who successfully completed the first five editions of the program (launched between 2012 and 2019), asking for demographics, and potential benefits and challenges of the program. Felt change in peer-review skills before and after the program were rated on a scale from 0 (no skill) to 10 (perfect skill). Results were analysed descriptively.ResultsA response rate of 55% for mentors (11/20) and 43% for mentees (37/87) was obtained. Mentors had a mean(SD) age of 52(9.5) years, 64% were male and 7 different nationalities were included. Mentees had a mean age of 34(3.7), 43% were male and 16 nationalities were included. Mentees/mentors from all the editions were included, although recent editions were somewhat overrepresented. Almost all respondents said their overall experience with the program was positive (46/47), that the objectives of the peer-reviewing mentoring program were met (46/47) and that they would recommend the program to others (44/45).Mentors indicated an initial average peer-review skill level of 5.2(1.8) for content and 4.2(1.9) for form, which improved by 2.7(1.3) points 3.2(1.8) points, respectively. Interestingly, improvement scores of the mentees paralleled those of mentors: content and form were initially rated at 4.9(1.7) and 5.1(1.8) and improved by 2.6(1.3) and 2.7(1.7), respectively. Nine out of ten mentors said the program had helped them improve their own skills (i.e., peer-reviewing, mentoring, and teaching). The number of peer reviews after completion of the program varied quite significantly between mentees (median 10, IQR 9.5-29). For most mentees, the number of peer-reviews stayed the same (18/32) or increased (12/32). Fifteen out of 32 respondents said they were invited as an independent reviewer for ARD and/or RMD Open after completion of the program. Potential benefits and challenges of the program are depicted in Figure 1. Added value mentioned by both mentors and mentees was the opportunity to contribute to high quality peer-review standards and improve their skills. Challenges reported by mentors were communication with mentees, stringent deadlines, and the program being time-consuming; challenges for mentees were the communication with their mentor, deadlines and insufficient clarity of the process.Figure 1.Rating of potential benefits and downsides of the program. X-axis: Items of the survey; Y-axis: the number of respondents (10/11 mentors and 35/37 mentees).ConclusionAfter 5 editions over 10 years, the EMEUNET Peer-Review Mentoring Program continues to be a highly valued opportunity in the field of rheumatic diseases, as both mentors and mentees experience a significant impact on their skills. Areas for improvement were identified (e.g., communication, deadlines) and will be addressed in future editions.References[1]DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000619AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all mentors, EMEUNET and working group members that helped shaping the EMEUNET peer-reviewing program throughout the years, and the ARD and RMD Open journals for their kind and generous support.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: