Development of how to peer-review resources for a publisher

The Role The successful candidate will research, plan and write a comprehensive collection of educational resources showing researchers how to critically and constructively peer review scholarly manuscripts. These resources should go considerably beyond generic descriptions of peer review. They should provide practical, step-by-step guidance that a researcher can use while reviewing an actual manuscript, explaining: what reviewers should examine; what questions they should ask; how different study designs should be assessed; how methodological and statistical weaknesses should be identified; how research integrity and ethical issues should be considered; how reviewer comments should be structured; how to distinguish major from minor concerns; and how to make clear, constructive and actionable recommendations to editors and authors. The resources should be authoritative enough for experienced academics while remaining sufficiently clear for early-career researchers undertaking their first peer reviews. Proposed Resource Series The writer will initially be expected to develop resources including: Core Peer Review Guides 1. How to Peer Review a Research Paper A comprehensive introduction to the peer-review process and a structured approach to evaluating an original research manuscript. 2. How to Write a Good Peer Review Report Guidance on structuring reviewer comments, prioritising issues, communicating constructively and providing actionable recommendations. 3. How to Peer Review the Introduction Assessing research rationale, originality, literature coverage, research gaps, objectives and hypotheses. 4. How to Peer Review the Methods Assessing study design, reproducibility, sampling, interventions, measurements, methodology, ethics and potential sources of bias. 5. How to Peer Review Results Assessing completeness, internal consistency, statistical reporting, tables, figures and whether the results adequately address the research questions. 6. How to Peer Review the Discussion and Conclusions Assessing interpretation, comparison with existing evidence, limitations, generalisability, clinical or scientific implications and whether conclusions are supported by the findings. 7. How to Assess Statistics During Peer Review Practical guidance for reviewers on statistical methods, sample size, effect estimates, confidence intervals, multiple testing, missing data and common statistical errors. Article-Type Specific Guides The resource series should also address the important differences between reviewing different types of scholarly articles. Potential guides include: 8. How to Peer Review a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Including: clarity of the review question; protocol registration; PRISMA compliance; database searching; inclusion and exclusion criteria; study selection; risk-of-bias assessment; data extraction; meta-analysis methodology; heterogeneity; publication bias; certainty of evidence; and interpretation of pooled findings. 9. How to Peer Review a Scoping Review Including assessment of: research question; search strategy; eligibility criteria; evidence mapping; study selection; data charting; PRISMA-ScR reporting; and whether conclusions appropriately reflect the purpose of a scoping review. 10. How to Peer Review a Randomised Controlled Trial Including: trial registration; randomisation; allocation concealment; blinding; sample-size calculation; participant flow; outcome measures; intention-to-treat analysis; adverse events; CONSORT reporting; and interpretation of treatment effects. 11. How to Peer Review an Observational Study Covering cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs, including: participant selection; confounding; selection bias; measurement bias; missing data; statistical adjustment; causality; generalisability; and STROBE reporting. 12. How to Peer Review a Case Report Including: clinical importance; novelty; patient history; diagnostic reasoning; treatment; outcomes; informed consent; CARE reporting; and educational value. 13. How to Peer Review a Qualitative Research Paper Including: research paradigm; participant selection; data collection; reflexivity; thematic or qualitative analysis; credibility; transferability; transparency; and appropriate reporting frameworks. 14. How to Peer Review a Narrative Review Including: scope; literature selection; balance; comprehensiveness; critical analysis; currency of references; author interpretation; and distinction between evidence and opinion. 15. How to Peer Review Laboratory and Experimental Research Including: experimental design; controls; reproducibility; biological and technical replicates; laboratory methods; statistical analysis; reporting transparency; and data interpretation. 16. How to Peer Review Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Research Including: dataset quality; training, validation and test datasets; external validation; data leakage; model selection; comparator models; performance metrics; explainability; reproducibility; bias and fairness; clinical or real-world applicability; and exaggerated claims. Research Integrity and Ethics Resources Additional resources should cover: 17. Research Ethics for Peer Reviewers Including: ethical approval; informed consent; vulnerable populations; animal research; confidentiality; conflicts of interest; and responsible research conduct. 18. How Reviewers Should Identify Potential Research Integrity Concerns Including potential indicators of: plagiarism; duplicate publication; inappropriate image manipulation; fabricated or inconsistent data; questionable authorship; citation manipulation; undeclared conflicts of interest; paper-mill activity; and other potential integrity concerns. The guidance must emphasise appropriate escalation to editors rather than asking reviewers to make formal findings of misconduct. 19. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review Explaining when reviewers should accept or decline invitations and how potential competing interests should be declared. 20. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers Covering manuscript confidentiality, unpublished findings, reviewer anonymity, intellectual property and appropriate use of manuscript information. Practical Reviewer Resources The writer may also be commissioned to develop practical supporting materials, including: Peer Review Checklist A concise checklist reviewers can use while evaluating a manuscript. First-Time Reviewer Guide A straightforward step-by-step guide for researchers undertaking their first peer review. Peer Review Report Template A recommended structure covering: Overall assessment Major comments Minor comments Methodological concerns Statistical concerns Presentation and reporting Confidential comments to the Editor Recommendation Major vs Minor Revisions Guide Explaining how reviewers should differentiate between: fundamental scientific problems; important correctable weaknesses; reporting deficiencies; clarification requests; and minor editorial corrections. Examples of Constructive Reviewer Comments Examples showing how poorly phrased criticism can be transformed into specific, respectful and actionable feedback. Responsibilities The appointed writer will: research internationally recognised best practices in scholarly peer review; review relevant Premier Science editorial and peer-review policies; develop a logical content architecture for the Reviewer Resource Centre; write original, authoritative and practical educational content; translate complex research methodology into clear language; incorporate recognised reporting and methodological standards where relevant; use practical examples, checklists, questions and decision aids; provide appropriate links and references to authoritative external guidance; ensure consistency across the complete resource series; collaborate with Premier Science editors on revisions; respond to editorial and subject-matter expert feedback; fact-check all content prior to submission; ensure resources remain applicable across multiple scientific and scholarly disciplines; and write content suitable for both website users and search-engine discovery. Writing Style Resources should be: Authoritative Content should reflect established principles of scholarly publishing and research methodology. Practical Readers should be able to use the guidance while conducting an actual peer review. Educational Concepts should be explained rather than merely listed. Constructive Peer review should be presented as a process for improving scholarship rather than simply identifying faults. Accessible Avoid unnecessary publishing jargon and explain specialist terminology where required. Structured Use clear headings, numbered steps, checklists, examples and key questions. International Guidance should be appropriate for researchers throughout the world. Evidence-based Recommendations should, where appropriate, reference recognised methodological, ethical and reporting standards. Expected Standards and Frameworks Candidates should be comfortable researching and appropriately incorporating standards and guidance such as: COPE guidance; ICMJE recommendations; EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines; PRISMA; PRISMA-ScR; CONSORT; STROBE; CARE; STARD; SPIRIT; ARRIVE; TREND; SRQR and/or COREQ; systematic review methodology; risk-of-bias assessment tools; and established principles of research integrity and publication ethics. The writer is not expected simply to reproduce these frameworks. The objective is to translate relevant principles into practical reviewer guidance. Required Experience Applicants should ideally have several of the following: postgraduate research qualification, preferably PhD, MD, equivalent doctorate or substantial research experience; experience publishing research in peer-reviewed academic journals; experience conducting academic peer review; strong understanding of research methodology; understanding of evidence-based research and critical appraisal; excellent written English; ability to explain complex scientific concepts clearly; experience writing educational or professional content; familiarity with academic publishing workflows; knowledge of publication ethics and research integrity; and ability to research authoritative guidance independently. Highly Desirable Experience We particularly welcome applicants with experience as: journal editors; associate editors; editorial board members; experienced peer reviewers; academic researchers; systematic review methodologists; research-methodology educators; medical or scientific writers; scholarly communications professionals; or publishing professionals. Experience working with major academic publishers, professional societies or scholarly journals would be advantageous.