Implementation and Outcomes of a Movement Disorder Society‐Sponsored Peer Reviewing Education and Mentoring Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective dissemination of scientific results depends on competent peer reviewers. Participating as a reviewer is important for academic advancement, although no formal training in peer review has existed in the movement disorders field. OBJECTIVES: To report the design, implementation, and outcomes of a Peer Reviewing Education and Mentoring Program. METHODS: We enrolled 10 participants in a 1-year mentored program with didactic training followed by two peer reviews with feedback from a senior mentor. Outcomes measures were an objective skills assessment and subjective questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants were diverse in gender, age, and background. All participants were deemed competent reviewers by their mentors upon completion. Objective skills improved after didactic training and self-assessment increased significantly after program completion (19.5 [12-25] to 29 [25-30], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This dedicated program helped participants gain competence and confidence in the peer review process. We plan to continue the program while improving educational methods and assessments. © 2022 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it