Peer review is one of the pillars of quality and credibility in scientific. Despite its relevance, the process is imperfect and affected by variability in quality and delays. The process of peer review requires constant management of biases and inconsistencies. Certain factors directly influence publication quality, such as editorial screening and the number of reviewers ¹1. Neff BD, Olden JD. Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? Bioscience. 2006;56(4):333-40.. Additional reviews after acceptance can enhance scientific rigor but may also frustrate authors’ expectations. Detailed reviews are valued for the perception of quality they provide ²2. Goldberg A, Stelmakh I, Cho K, Oh A, Agarwal A, Belgrave D, et al. Peer Reviews of Peer Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Other Experiments. arXiv. 2024:2311.09497. 2024 Nov 11 Available from: Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09497 .
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09497... , though excessive steps delay publication ³3. Deretic V, Klionsky DJ. Not lowering the bar, just providing a step stool. Autophagy. 2021;17(7):1569-70..

Ineffective editorial processes lead to unjustifiable delays, such as the weeks-long wait for initial communications from some journals ⁴4. Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633-50.. Communication is often hindered by diffuse responsibilities among editors, resulting in misunderstandings in interactions with authors ⁵5. Candal-Pedreira C, Rey-Brandariz J, Varela-Lema L, Pérez-Ríos M, Ruano-Ravina A. Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals. Anales de pediatria. 2023;99(1):54-9.. Reducing timelines, improving communication, and providing constructive feedback increase author satisfaction ⁶6. Frakt AB. Editor’s desk: Improving author experience. Health Serv Res. 2021;56(5):745-6.. Enhancing the peer review process aims to reduce these information asymmetries, mitigate reviewer workload, and recognizes the contributions of those who effectively support the editorial process.

To improve the peer review process at Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde: revista do SUS (RESS), a checklist with hierarchical items was developed to guide the construction of reviews and organize the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to RESS ⁷7. Silva MT, Galvao TF. Revisão por pares: itens recomendados na elaboração de pareceres [Internet]. Charlottesville: Open Science Framework; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 11]. Available from: Available from: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/grn2a .
https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/grn2a... . The use of tools like this in peer review has the potential to increase transparency and systematize the process ⁸8. Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994;309(6955):648-51.^,99. Parker TH, Griffith SC, Bronstein JL, Fidler F, Foster S, Fraser H, et al. Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. Nature ecology & evolution. 2018;2(6):929-35..

To develop the checklist, we started with the main reasons for rejection of scientific articles submitted to journals ¹⁰10. Pereira MG. Artigos científicos: como redigir, publicar e avaliar. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2011. and conducted a literature review to identify prior experiences that could provide the basic framework ¹¹11. Allen TW. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review? J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013;113(12):916-20.

12. Desselle SP, Chen AM, Amin M, Aslani P, Dawoud D, Miller MJ, et al. Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(2):261-5.

13. Gregory AT, Denniss AR. Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Heart Lung Circ. 2019;28(8):1148-53.

14. Hesterman CM, Szperka CL, Turner DP. Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache. Headache. 2018;58(10):1511-8.

15. Jefferson T, Godlee F. Peer Review in Health Sciences: Wiley; 2003.

16. Mathioudakis AG, Wagner D, Dumas O. How to peer review: practical advice for early career researchers. Breathe (Sheffield, England). 2022;18(4):220160.

17. Venkatesh S, Maymone MB, Vashi NA. Peer reviews: the dreaded rejection. Dermatol Online J. 2018;24(3).^-1818. Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How To Survive Peer Review: Wiley; 2002.. The authors’ participation in events such as the International Congress of Peer Review and Scientific Publication (https://peerreviewcongress.org) also provided insights that helped evolve the tool.

The checklist was structured into critical, important, and desirable items ⁷7. Silva MT, Galvao TF. Revisão por pares: itens recomendados na elaboração de pareceres [Internet]. Charlottesville: Open Science Framework; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 11]. Available from: Available from: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/grn2a .
https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/grn2a... to assist reviewers in evaluating whether the research meets essential requirements, such as the relevance of the research question for the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS), the adequacy of the study design for the proposed investigation, the alignment of methods - epidemiological, statistical, or qualitative - with the objective, the consistency and robustness of the results with the methods used, and the compatibility of the conclusion with the guiding question and SUS guidelines. The expectation is that its systematic adoption will benefit reviewers, editors, authors, and readers by organizing the review process to reduce bias and shorten evaluation time.

In order to test the checklist and train reviewers and editors, we organized the first ‘RESSathon: RESS peer review marathon’ in June 2024 in Brasília, conducted as an outreach project by the University of Brasília ¹⁹19. Universidade de Brasília. 1ª RESSatona - Maratona de Peer Review da RESS [Internet]. Brasília: Sistema Integrado de Gestão de Atividades Acadêmicas, 2024. [cited 2024 Nov 11]. Available from: Available from: https://sigaa.unb.br/sigaa/link/public/extensao/visualizacaoAcaoExtensao/13525 .
https://sigaa.unb.br/sigaa/link/public/e... ^). Similar review marathons have been reported to empower graduate students by engaging them in review processes and enhancing their skills in article evaluation ²⁰20. Kern VM, Possamai O, Selig PM, dos Santos Pacheco RC, de Souza GC, Rautenberg S, et al., editors. Growing a Peer Review Culture among Graduate Students. 2009; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.. Two additional marathons were held in 2024, training a total of 96 researchers in peer review practices ²¹21. Universidade de Brasília. 2ª RESSatona - Maratona de Revisão por Pares da RESS [Internet]. Brasília: Sistema Integrado de Gestão de Atividades Acadêmicas , 2024. [cited 2024 Nov 11]. Available from: Available from: https://sigaa.unb.br/sigaa/link/public/extensao/visualizacaoAcaoExtensao/14100 .
https://sigaa.unb.br/sigaa/link/public/e... ^,2222. Universidade de Brasília. 3ª RESSatona - Maratona de Revisão por Pares da RESS [Internet]. Brasília: Sistema Integrado de Gestão de Atividades Acadêmicas , 2024. [cited 2024 Nov 11]. Available from: Available from: https://sigaa.unb.br/sigaa/link/public/extensao/visualizacaoAcaoExtensao/14104 .
https://sigaa.unb.br/sigaa/link/public/e... . These marathons can be replicated in other institutions interested in strengthening scientific communication among researchers, faculty, and graduate students, as well as bringing the academic community closer to RESS and its team. In addition to contributing to journals, serving as a reviewer promotes the development of critical skills and supports the consolidation of scientists’ careers ²³23. Deslandes SF, Silva AA. [Peer review: demand-side crisis or change of values?]. Cad Saude Publica. 2013;29(3):421-3.. These efforts aim to strengthen the RESS editorial process, making it increasingly fair, effective, and aligned with SUS interest.

References

Publication Dates