Getting Published and Mastering Peer Review

  • Start: Jul 1, 2024 09:00 AM (Local Time Germany)
  • End: Jul 2, 2024 05:00 PM
  • Speaker: Brian Cusack, Science Craft
  • Who is you trainer: Dr. Brian Cusack comes from Cork, Ireland and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Trinity College, Dublin in 2007. During his Ph.D. Brian received the kind of mentoring that he continues to consider as the gold-standard for graduate students. After completing his first postdoc at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris, Brian conducted post-doctoral research in evolutionary genomics at the Max-Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin. In February 2012, together with Rick Scavetta, Brian co-founded Science Craft in Berlin. Since then Brian has provided high-level training workshops for more than a thousand researchers throughout Germany as well as in Norway and China.
  • Location: University of Konstanz
  • Room: ZT1201
  • Host: IMPRS
  • Contact:
Getting Published and Mastering Peer Review
Peer Review is the foundation of the scientific method, providing quality control for published research findings. Yet more than 95% of researchers receive no training in this essential skill, forcing them to learn, by trial and error, how to engage in peer review as authors and reviewers. Science Craft’s newest workshop is unique in filling this important skills-gap. Participants learn how to understand and appreciate the roles of the author, reviewer and journal editor; select the best journal for their research and spark the interest of the editor with an engaging cover letter; respond comprehensively and courteously to the reviews; evaluate a research article and phrase criticism constructively; enhance their scientific reputations among journal editors by becoming better reviewers. Science craft’s teaching approach: Reviewer exercises hone critical thinking skills which can also be applied to participants’ own research; trains prospective reviewers to recognise their own unconscious biases; exercises promote an author-reviewer dialogue that is scientific & constructive rather than personalised & nit-picking; as homework, participants evaluate a short manuscript describing a fictional research project of general interest; workshop activities are used to explore common ethical issues in peer review. What sets this workshop apart: Participants receive a printed manual guiding them through all steps of the publication process from journal selection to final acceptance of their articles. Common myths regarding peer review are re-evaluated using published evidence from the literature. To open the “black box” of this topic, participants can select published articles benefitting from Transparent Peer Review for discussion in-class. Participants who currently have a manuscript under review can have the reviews and their author response considered for discussion during the workshop.
Go to Editor View