How Peer Review Actually Works (And Why You Should Care)

0:00 You're listening to the P.T. Pinecast, where smart people in healthcare come to make noise. Here's your host, Jimmy McKay. Voice guy, to kick things off, I want to say big thanks to new sponsor, Sarah Health, a remote care platform helping clinics boost revenue without adding staff. Oh, yeah. Also, it's increasing quality of care. More touch points. Sarah automates daily patient check-ins via text. No app, no logins, just better outcomes and emojis. It's a simple way to meet RTM requirements, improve follow-through, and actually get reimbursed for the things that you're doing between visits. Look at that. Win-win. Win. Yeah, win all around. SarahHealth.com.

0:40 Check them out. That's S-A-R-A. Sarah without the H. SarahHealth.com. At this year's CSM, I love doing the preview episodes. It's the movie before the movie. We've got a group that are pulling back the curtain on the academic publishing process. Think, you know, do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain. It's all about us. To help clinicians, students, and researchers understand how to get published. how to review like a pro, and how to break into the scholarly conversation. If you've ever felt like academic publishing was too complex, too exclusive, or just not for you, this conversation might just flip that belief. And wouldn't that be fun?

1:21 Let's bring in our guests, Rachel and Dawn, to the program. Ladies, welcome to the show. All right. So love the fact that you were doing this because when I saw this on the docket, I was like, yeah, I have no idea how this happens. I have seen a bunch of memes that talk about like reviewer two. For some reason, reviewer two is always the mean one. I don't know. I don't want to get into that one. But let's start this with like, why? So why? Feel free. I'll drop the question like a hockey referee and you guys can both answer it. Decide who goes first. What inspired PTJ to create a session like this? Love name, by the way, behind the red ink, the dreaded red ink pen.

2:01 So what was the inspiration? What's the big W? What's the why? Yeah, I can take that one first, if that's OK, Rachel. We talked about this. I think for me, having been on the author side of publications and things like that, it just seemed like a really scary process to get into. We work so hard. Everyone works so hard. They pour their blood, sweat, and tears into these papers, into these manuscripts. And then you put it out there for people to critique and to judge. And, and that's really a scary thing. And I know when I first was doing that, you get that first paper back and it's just covered in that red ink. People hate it. It was terrible. Maybe you got rejected and it's just horrible.

2:43 nobody wants to feel that right. And so, but I didn't really know who was on the other side of that, making those decisions. And so we kind of came together. We thought, wouldn't it be a good idea to sort of, again, look behind the red ink, like you said, pull back the curtain to see, you know, we're just real people trying to do a thing to help promote our profession, to promote research within our profession, within our field. And so it's an opportunity hopefully to humanize the process and to help folks understand that, gosh, it's really not that scary. And maybe I could actually contribute to that decision-making process. So that's a lot of what went into all of this. Have you guys thought about just simply changing the color of the ink? No, just kidding. All right, Rachel, why did you just kind of jump on this?

3:24 I don't know if I just showed up with a simple answer, but if it was green, would it be as bad? We should do a study on that. But all right, Rachel, why are we doing that? No, I think I've been on the editorial board of PGJ for four or five years now. And what I've really noticed is how seriously the editorial board takes our role as like the official journal of the APTA. So this CSN session is kind of a continuation of a lot of other things that we have been doing. So PTJ hosts like quarterly peer review labs where we bring in the last one, Danny Young and myself ran one for some people who are really new to the peer review process.

4:07 But we really see getting more people involved in peer review as an amazing way to build not only like your individual experience with learning how to take a research article and digest it and apply it clinically. But we need clinicians and we need more frontline folks really engaging in the research because that's, we want to be publishing work that is clinically applicable. So I think this is just yet another way that we want to get out in front of members, PTA members. As a guy with a communications background, of course, I'm going to look through the lens, but if I don't understand it, it's more confusing.

4:50 That's literally how it works. So by baby-stepping people through it, and I don't think it's baby-stepping in terms of talking down to them, but if you don't understand this, I will then walk it back and then walk you through this process. And then suddenly... maybe there's a little less red ink next time, or maybe I'll do this more if the process isn't so, or I don't feel like it's so daunting. So pulling back the curtain is a great idea. What do you think scares people most about peer review and publishing? And now we get into emotions. It's like, wait a minute, it's still about logic, but we are humans on the beginning and end of this. There's gotta be emotions. Where do you think the fear originates from?

5:31 What are the one or many places? I think for peer reviewers or for people who are new, you know, get asked maybe for the first time to review an article, there's a lot of imposter syndrome. You know, you don't have to have a PhD to be a great peer reviewer. So our goal is to kind of say, you know, we want to hear from you, but here's some maybe ways that can make your review more or less helpful. And then one thing we're going to actually do at this session is take our own work as editorial board members and walk people through the review process for an article that we've published in ptj and just really say like here's you know full disclosure this is what i submitted this is what some of the reviews said this is what was helpful and this is kind of what helped get it ultimately published so they can really see that kind of process on the back end all right so imposter syndrome would one dawn another Yeah, I think the other thing that, you know, one thing we're going to highlight is that folks don't always appreciate or not appreciate, that's not the right word, kind of see the multiple different benefits to this peer review.

6:41 So again, increasingly we all ask, well, what's in it for me, right? Certainly... As researchers, we as authors, we need to put our things out there, have it peer reviewed. So we certainly need people to do that, be a part of that peer reviewed process. But I think for me, again, speaking from my own experience, again, it was daunting to be asked to do that first review. Because like you said, Rachel, I felt like, I'm not qualified. I don't know enough. I haven't written enough. But what's ironic about the whole process is that by engaging with it, you actually improve your own writing skills and become so much better. So I feel like my writing, I can share this on PD podcast, right? Like in high school, in college, writing English, that was not my thing.

7:24 I was a math person. That's how my brain works. I was a horrible writer. And so, especially for me, there was a lot of that imposter syndrome coming into this space. But again, it was by reviewing other people's work and understanding from my perspective as a reader, what resonated, what worked well, that's how I got better. And so I think that's, you know, for me, the nice bridge of like, gosh, you know what? I've learned so much just being a reviewer and reading more people's work that I myself have gotten a lot better too. So yeah. I forget who said it. I'm pretty good with quotes, but bad at who said them, which was, if you want to be a better writer, you need to write more and you need to read more. You don't need more readers. You want to be a better podcaster. You don't need more listeners.

8:05 You need to do it more. And as I'm saying that out loud, I'm imagining what would a peer review process for my podcast look like? I don't know if we'd ever published episode number one. It didn't make any sense until it makes sense. So for someone totally new to scholarly writing, and I want to be very clear, I have a degree in journalism. I was the opposite of Dawn. Get me away from an abacus and get me closer to a dictionary or some words. But this is a skill. You're born with talents and skills of the things you build on. So if you want to get good, you can. So I want you guys to talk directly to the person who maybe wants to try this and is new to scholarly writing, which is different than different types of writing, writing for broadcast, writing for print, writing for technical writing.

8:48 So for someone totally new to scholarly writing, Where do they start? Well, obviously your session at CSM, but where would you send them if they're not going to be there or after that? Where's sort of that first step? Yeah, I would say for me, what made the biggest difference also is just having mentors, you know, folks that have that writing experience. So I remember one of my first meetings in graduate school, I drafted my first paper, gave it, and it was horrible. Let's just be honest. It was terrible. It was horrible. Looking back, it was the worst thing ever. I gave it to her. She went through and just... But again, we talked through the process of where I was breaking down in terms of the clarity of my communication.

9:30 And so we just talked about, again, overall structure. But then even within that, just really it's all about clearly communicating what it is you're trying to say and ensuring that that comes through really clearly. So for me, it's been some of the mentors that I've had, especially early on. Like now it's more, again, reading resources. really appreciating having read other folks work and kind of learning from that but initially it was really just having somebody that could be that mentor and they weren't afraid to maybe they used a green or a blue or a purple link i don't remember but they just tore it apart and it wasn't out of the place of you're a horrible person. It was, I want to help you get better. And so it was really that early mentorship.

10:11 I mean, it sounds like, and I know this from experience being on the receiving end and then eventually on the re on the sending end, which is like giving feedback is a skill. Like this is a different type of process is the goal to use as much ink as possible. Probably no. Is the goal to make sure you don't lose them. Right. And guide them along. Yeah. probably closer to that. Step one, Rachel, where would you send them? Dawn said people. You can offer people in a different way if you want. I really like, Jimmy, how you called it scholarly writing because I think what some people don't realize is that you don't have to be a researcher to publish in PTJ. And so we have a lot of other, so there's PTJ perspective pieces, there's points of view, there's other types of scholarly writing that PTJ publishes because it contributes to the profession.

11:01 So I think that's important for CSM attendees to, like, if you have something to say that you think, you know, could be published or needs to be read by more members of our profession and has, you know, some scholarly kind of background to it, this session will also help you. We're going to go through some examples of those pieces that are, you know, we have research articles that we'll cover, but we have also non-research pieces that we're going to kind of take apart and walk through as authors. So I think I would send people to PTJ's website and say, hey, look at the breadth of things that we publish. It's not just research articles. There are other things that you could also contribute to, even if you're not a researcher or even thinking about pursuing a research career.

11:48 it makes now that you're talking this out and i'm a verbal processor so if i were to have read something that you read you you wrote about this i don't think i would have absorbed it well which is probably why you also have a podcast um seems like you're trying to be less of a gatekeeper and i know that can feel that way if you keep submitting things and you're not getting in now you feel like it's a gatekeeper and more like a I don't know, like a strainer or a sander. I know it's in there, but we gotta remove what doesn't need to be there so it can be more concise. So less of a gatekeeper, more an improver is the best word I can come up with. No, I think coach is a good way to- There you go. That's about it.

12:30 Because part of the peer review process is really thinking about impact on the profession. So it's not only someone who's gonna be a copy editor. It's someone to help you hone the ideas and to say, what will actually have that sort of broader impact? Because we don't want to, PTJ, I think I can speak for the whole team, we don't want to publish good research that has no impact, even if it's a robust study. If it's not going to make any difference to a clinical therapist, it's not really of interest to the journal. And I think the coaching aspect comes from is kind of comes at a lot of angles.

13:13 And really what we're trying to do in this session is train more coaches, coach more coaches to make them better at providing that sort of feedback to other people. Because that's scalable. I got to pay bills. Thanks to Empower EMR. If your clinic is stuck on an EMR, but slows you down, that's a you choice. Empower gives you speed, clean workflows and features. PTs actually ask for better notes, faster documentation and smoother operations. They all sound good. All wrapped up in customer support that doesn't ghost you. EmpowerEMR.com. That is EmpowerEMR.com. So you guys are able to speak from both sides. So that's got to be great, right? No matter what chair you're sitting in, you understand what the other looks like.

13:55 Author and editor. What's one thing from each position you wish every new author had? understood? If you could be whispering in their ear when they're sitting there with that cursor blinking at them with Microsoft Word, what's the thing you wish they knew? I think what came to mind initially when you asked that question, Jimmy, is it's not personal. I feel like, you know, it's an episode of Godfather or something like it's just business. It's not personal, right? Like it's, it doesn't mean you're a horrible person. Like, again, for me, we're, we're being so vulnerable, putting our, you know, work out there. It can be really challenging when it comes back with some pretty harsh, sometimes feedback.

14:37 Again, it's not an assault on you. It's really, I think of us, Rachel, like on the associate editor team, the editorial team, like we're really rooting for people. We want, if it's a good idea and like, a good foundation, gosh, we want to see that succeed, right? And so we're going to provide that feedback to enable that. But again, for me, it was, again, it's just these things come from a place of making the work itself stronger and more robust. So that's what came to mind. Yeah. I think you need a thick skin as an author, but it's nice to have both perspectives because you do realize that those reviews, again, they're supposed to be constructive. And what we're hoping with our session is to help reviewers be more constructive and more helpful to authors.

15:21 And the other thing I would say, I think, My like words for authors is say less. There is. And maybe reviewers, too. You know, I think one of the the journeys of becoming an academic writer is like you you start complicating your work and making it sound really fancy. And as you can probably say, Jamie, the scientific communication is often the simpler, the better. Yeah, brevity is the soul of wit. Don't use ten words when three will do. If you can do that, and that is simple, it's not easy, and it is also a skill. Let's ask a specific PTJ question.

16:02 How do you see PTJ evolving to support clinicians and early career researchers? They are quite literally the future, and you've adapted. You've added things. You mentioned perspectives and podcasts. Those are some of the things. Future-facing. Let's see. I guess I'm one of the newer, earlier career researchers on our editorial team. And since I do a lot of the dissemination work, I think about this a lot. Some of the other things we're doing is really trying to get students involved in research early on. So we have a student lead every kind of couple of years who is a member of our editorial team.

16:48 kind of helps me figure out what student preferences are. And so we're actually going to be doing interviews with our editorial board, with our student lead at CSM, talking about what their thoughts on the future of PT research are. But really, like, kind of breaking down that that silo i think for students to understand what goes into pt research um kind of right at the beginning of their education and know that all those articles they're reading in class it really takes years and a lot of blood sweat and tears to to create research and um so i think that's that's something that i've worked on don what do you think Yeah, I was going to build on that.

17:30 I was hoping you were going to mention the student workers that we have, Rachel. I think the other thing too is, you know, it seems like within, we've had this for a little bit, but really within the last few years, I'm just looking at our website right now, but these sort of peer review labs where we're really encouraging for folks who maybe look at the process, the review process as being somewhat daunting, to really just bring them in beforehand and say, hey, join us for similar to what we're doing at CSM, this same kind of idea, but really just, you know, let's come together, let's review and critically appraise an article together just to go through the process. So again, it feels less kind of overwhelming and sort of scary.

18:13 And so offering a lot of those sorts of opportunities through the website, through things like CSM and audience. And so again, we share those opportunities you know oftentimes with gosh anybody who wants to come we at our program direct them toward our phd candidates but certainly anyone who has an interest in publishing or just learning more is welcome to join those so The last thing I'll mention from kind of just the journal side is to support the average clinician is the APTA is invested in publishing and writing more clinical practice guidelines. So those you'll see coming out more in PTJ specifically.

18:54 And that has been kind of a priority that we're really trying to increase how often and kind of the breadth of the different CPGs that we publish. Behind the Red Ink, Demystifying Peer Review and Empowering Emerging Scholars. Bold move, Friday, February thirteenth, ten thirty to noon at CSM this year. If this felt like you, how can you really miss this section? How can you really miss it? So make sure you go there. Let's see. We're going to do a little bit of a game. You guys down for a game? Sure. Why not? Why not? We'll do a quick game.

19:35 All right, I want you to wear your editor hats. You got five seconds to answer these each. Dawn is already saying, great, we're going rapid fire. I'll count slow, don't worry about it. Just fill in the blank, okay? The biggest red flag in a manuscript submission. We'll go Rachel, Dawn. Rachel, biggest red flag that you can spot from a mile away in a manuscript submission. What is it? Oh gosh, I'm a big stats nerd. So pre-post design. Got it. Dawn, biggest red flag. Yeah. For me, it's the gap in the introduction, like not explicitly saying like, why is this even important? The significance. You have to take a stand.

20:16 There's no tie. Oxford comma, friend or foe? Friend. Friend. Coffee or citation manager? What gets through you? What helps you get through a long day more power? Dawn already answers. Rachel already answered. You don't have to say words. They just hold up their cups. We got it. One word authors overuse in manuscripts. If you could say you can't use this word anymore, what's the one where you're like, oh gosh, what is it? This is a telling on myself. Thus is one that I use too much. I was going to say therefore, but thus is pretty close. Dawn, a word you could just say you can't use it.

20:57 What is it? Anything? Nothing. Yeah. That was my first thought. So yeah. All right. Best way to win over a peer reviewer. Can they send you candy? No, but what's the best way to honestly win over a peer reviewer? I'll go first on that one, Rachel. You've been in the hot seat. It's in responding to their feedback, being thorough and constructive and responsive. Got it. Mine would be write clearly and concisely, but also what has Don mentioned, tell them why you wrote the study. Just say it. This is why this study is needed.

21:40 Start with the end in mind. I love it. All right. Last one. This is finish this sentence. Peer review should feel like blank. What should it feel like? Therapy should feel like a really good therapy session. Oh, I, you answered that way different than I thought. That's awesome. Dawn, it should appear as you should feel like blank. My first thought was the learning process. Perfect. Yeah. Perfect. All right. The last thing we do on the show, we call it the parting shot. This is The Parting Shot.

22:20 One last mic drop moment. No pressure. Just your legacy on the line. There's no pressure there, just like in the peer review process. It's just about dropping knowledge. I want to say thanks to our sponsor, US Physical Therapy, USPH, a nationwide network of clinics focused on developing clinicians, not burning them out, leadership tracks, mentorship, and career growth, and the stability to build your own future in this profession. Find out more at USPH.com. That is USPH.com. Don, you can go first and lead the way since you've done a parting shot before. What's the last thing you'd want to leave with the audience? Then we'll go to Rachel. Yeah, I would just say, again, we're just on the editorial team at PTJ.

23:03 We're just, you know, normal people just trying to really support and promote our profession to the best of our ability. So come hang out with us, get a little view into the peer review process. I promise it'll be a good experience. Mine is similar. You belong in PTJ. We have a great community and we're just trying to help support our clinicians with the best research we can and peer review is a huge part of that. It'll be these two women along with a decent lineup. You guys got a pretty heavy hitting lineup. And again, I'll say that again, behind the red ink, demystifying peer review and empowering emerging scholars, Friday the thirteenth, ten a.m. until noon.

23:43 Thanks so much for doing this little preview episode. I can already see someone listening to this on the flight. That's when I figure out what I'm there's a conference. What day is this? What are we doing? Let's get that app. Thanks for doing this. I wanted to pull the curtain behind your session and I hope we put some glutes and seas for you. Thanks, Jimmy.