Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts

Overview

Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community members in other phases of the research process suggests that they provide distinct and useful expertise. Such involvement may lead to enhanced understanding of community priorities, refinement of study designs to minimize participant burden, and increased recruitment and retention of subjects. The investigators propose a randomized controlled trial involving 24 community members who will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. A total of 568 manuscripts submitted to 2 medical journals will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and by scientific reviewers while control manuscripts will be reviewed only by scientific reviewers. Journal editorial teams will use all reviews to help them make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.

Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community members in other phases of the research process suggests that they provide distinct and useful expertise. Such involvement may lead to enhanced understanding of community priorities, refinement of study designs to minimize participant burden, and increased recruitment and retention of subjects. In general, community involvement in research is more common in the earlier phases of the research process (selection of research question and development of a study protocol) and less common in later phases (dissemination and implementation of findings). In the investigators' previous work, they conducted a pilot study that recruited and trained community members to review medical journal manuscripts. They found that community reviewers were much more likely than scientific reviewers to comment on i) the relevance of the study to patients and communities, ii) the diversity and complexity of the study participants, iii) the social context of the condition studied, and iv) barriers to implementation of study findings by patients and communities. The investigators now propose a randomized controlled trial involving 24 community members who will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. A total of 568 manuscripts submitted to 2 medical journals will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and by scientific reviewers while control manuscripts will be reviewed only by scientific reviewers. Community reviewers will follow each journal's instructions regarding electronic access to manuscripts, use of drop-down menus and free-text boxes to address specific aspects of the review, and completion within the time frame specified by the journal. Journal editorial teams will use all reviews to help them make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. Quantitative and qualitative analyses will i) compare the content of community and scientific reviews, ii) determine the usefulness of community reviews to journal editors, and iii) explore how community reviewer comments are integrated into published articles. The proposed project is a novel approach to engaging health disparity populations and other community members in dissemination of research findings. This approach has the potential to provide new and distinct perspectives, to increase the quality and relevance of articles published in medical journals, and to enhance dissemination and implementation of research findings. Primary Aim A. To compare community member reviews with those of scientific reviewers. Hypothesis: Compared to scientific reviewers, community reviewers will be more likely to comment on relevance to patients and communities, subject diversity, social context, and implementation barriers. Primary Aim B. To determine the usefulness of community member reviews to editors. Hypothesis: Editors will report utilizing community reviewer comments in manuscript decisions. Secondary Aim C. To explore how community reviews are integrated into published articles. Hypothesis: Community perspectives that were not present in manuscripts at the time of original submission will subsequently be discernible in published articles.