A peer review card exchange game
Abstract
Introduction. Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed a card exchange game based on responsibility and integrity in peer review for a hands-on training session.
Methods. We used the approach for the development of training materials about responsible research and innovation developed by the HEIRRI project, and the principles of the card game for the popularisation of the philosophy of science.
Results. We created 32 card statements about peer review, distributed across 6 domains: Responsiveness, Competence, Impartiality, Confidentiality, Constructive criticism and Responsibility to science. We adapted the instructions for the game and tested the game during the peer review school at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, May 2018. The feedback by the participants was very positive.
Conclusions. The Peer Review Card Exchange Game could be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training.
About the Authors
R. Tokalić
University of Split
Croatia
Croatia
Ružica Tokalić, Department of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine
Split
A. Marušić
University of Split
Croatia
Croatia
Ana Marušić, Department of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine
Split
References
1. Drummond R. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2003:1–13.
2. D’Andrea R., O’Dwyer J. P. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PloS one. 2017;12(10):e0186111. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0186111
3. Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4–8. DOI: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4
4. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007(2):MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
5. Csiszar A. Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016;532(7599):306–308. DOI: 10.1038/532306a
6. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in biotechnology. 2002;20(8):357–358.
7. Grimaldo F., Marusic A., Squazzoni F. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969–2015). PloS one. 2018;13(2):e0193148. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193148
8. Bruce R., Chauvin A., Trinquart L., Ravaud P., Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine. 2016;14(1):85. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5
9. Tennant J. P., Dugan J. M., et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2017:6:1151. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
10. Walker R., Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review — a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2015;9(169). DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169
11. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017;6:588. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
12. PEERE: New frontiers of peer review 2018. Available at: http://www.peere.org/ [Accessed 2018, 24 May].
13. Squazzoni F., Grimaldo F., Marušić A. Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data. Nature. 2017;546:352. DOI:10.1038/546352a
14. PEERE Training School on Peer Review: Programme. 2018. Available at: http://www.peere.org/school/school-programme/ [Accessed 2018, 24 May].
15. HEIRRI. Facilitating Refl on Responsible Research and Innovation training programme. Available from: https://www.rri-tools.eu/-/facilitating-reflection-on-responsible-research-and-innovation [Accessed 2018, 24 May].
16. Bergquist W. H., Phillips S. R. A handbook for faculty development. Danville, NY: Danville Press; 1975.
17. Cobern W. W. Introducing teachers to the philosophy of science: The card exchange. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1991;2(2):45–46. DOI: 10.1007/BF02962852
18. H2020 HEIRRI project (Higher Education Institutions and Responsible Research and Innovation). 2018. Available at: http://heirri.eu/ [Accessed 2018, 24 May].
19. Peer Review Resources by Yale University. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/yale-university [Accessed 2018, 25 May].
20. University NI. Peer Review Quick Guide. 2005. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/niu_peerreview/index.html [Accessed 2018, 25 May].
21. Columbia Center for New Media Teaching & Learning. Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship and Peer Review. Available at: http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/foundation/index.html [Accessed 2018, 25 May].
22. Society for Neuroscience: Guidelines for Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication. 2010. Available from: https://www.sfn.org/Member-Center/Professional-Conduct/Guidelines-for-Responsible-Conduct-Regarding-Scientific-Communication [Accessed 2018, 25 May].
23. Resources for Research Ethics Education: Peer review. Available at: http://research-ethics.org/topics/peer-review/#discussion [Accessed 2018, 24 May].
24. Gutierrez A. F., Chudler E. Development and Effectiveness of an Educational Card Game as Supplementary Material in Understanding Selected Topics in Biology. CBE – Life Sciences Education. 2014;13(1):76–82.
25. Su T., Cheng M.-T., Lin S.-H., Ledbetter M. L. Investigating the Effectiveness of an Educational Card Game for Learning How Human Immunology is Regulated. CBE – Life Sciences Education. 2014;13(3):504–515. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-10-0197
26. Knudtson C. A. ChemKarta: A Card Game for Teaching Functional Groups in Undergraduate Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 2015;92(9):1514–1517. DOI: 10.1021/ed500729v
27. Martí-Centelles V., Rubio-Magnieto J. ChemMend: A Card Game To Introduce and Explore the Periodic Table while Engaging Students’ Interest. Journal of Chemical Education. 2014;91(6):868–871. DOI: 10.1021/ed300733w
28. Morris T. A. Go Chemistry: A Card Game To Help Students Learn Chemical Formulas. Journal of Chemical Education. 2011;88(10):1397–1399. DOI: 10.1021/ed100661c
29. Horbach S., Halffman W. Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of “Scientific Integrity”. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017;23(6):1461–1485. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y
30. Komic D., Marusic S. L., Marusic A. Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines. PloS one. 2015;10(7):e0133662. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133662
31. Hren D., Sambunjak D., Ivaniš A., Marušić M., Marušić A. Perceptions of authorship criteria: effects of student instruction and scientific experience. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2007;33(7):428–432.
Review
For citations:
Tokalić R., Marušić A. A peer review card exchange game. Science Editor and Publisher. 2018;3(3-4):144-154. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2018-3-4-144-154
Views: 1065
Email this article 
