When I first read the email invitation to peer review an article for The Journal of Urology^®, I knew it had been sent by mistake. I was just over a year into residency, not very interested in research, and as far from a thought leader as you could get. “This could not have been intended for me,” I thought. “There must be another George Koch out there in urology who does a lot of bladder cancer research.”

To clear up the misunderstanding, I checked in with a mentor before replying “you’ve got the wrong guy,” to the invitation. Instead, I found that not only was the email intended for me, but also that it had been sent at my mentor’s request. What I didn’t realize at the time was that this small gesture of encouragement would be a trajectory-changer for my residency and my career. I’ve spent the last 4 years trying to offer the same advice and encouragement to others.

Whether residents belong in the peer reviewer pool seems to be more of a trainee concern than a faculty one. “Often times, people in training are the most invested and provide some of the best reviews,” said Dr Dan Joyce, an Early Career Editor at The Journal of Urology^®. However, “I’m not an expert in XYZ” is the refrain I hear time and time again when talking to coresidents about peer review. Unfortunately, this concern tends to discount the importance of both preparation and commitment in the peer review process. The ability to critically review medical literature is an essential skill for practicing urologists, both academic and private practice, and it doesn’t come with the residency diploma. Instead, these skills need to be introduced and honed during residency to prepare trainees for practice. Working on these skills as a resident and fellow not only allows them to mature and develop before independent practice, but also leaves room for mentorship, as trainees have ready access to attendings with more clinical and editorial experience. Instead of waiting for some arbitrary career checkpoint, residency is the ideal time to become a peer reviewer, when asking for help and guidance from more experienced urologists is both appropriate and encouraged. Mentorship for early reviewers improves individual reviews and cultivates the skill of reviewing.

In addition to developing critical review skills, becoming a peer reviewer offers several advantages for trainees. Reviewing others’ work creates research reps by which trainees can refine their understanding of methodology, statistics, and writing style in a 3-4 hour review as opposed to a 3-4 month research project. Reviewers can also get a sneak peek of developing research ideas and trends within the field. These research reps and sneak peeks provide the opportunity to improve each reviewer’s own research experience, all while contributing to the editorial process. Finally, having a voice in the peer review process allows reviewers the opportunity to drive the field forward. Reviewers’ decisions about what deserves publication and what doesn’t guide the focus of journals and the zeitgeist of the specialty. That voice manifests itself in the direct result of submitted reviews, but even more important, in the opportunities to interface and build relationships with thought leaders and contribute to editorials.

The relationship between medical journals and reviewers is symbiotic. Reviewers need journals to publish their own work as well as disseminate others’ research and developments in the field. Journals need reviewers to provide high-quality reviews that ensure their content is refined and appropriate for publication. In 2022, there were 3,330 individual peer reviews submitted to The Journal of Urology^®. Yet while The Journal of Urology^® boasts a reviewer roster of over 10,000 individuals, almost twice as many reviewers became inactive than were added to the pool of possible reviewers from 2018 to 2022. Moreover, over 3,500 reviewers have not submitted a review since January 1, 2018. Recognizing the essential role that reviewers play in the editorial process, The Journal of Urology^® has begun to develop a series of programs designed to introduce residents and fellows to the editorial process and to develop their skills as peer reviewers. The initiative will begin with a webinar series, A Primer on Peer Review, with plans to expand to a mentored review program that will pair interested residents with an experienced reviewer to guide them through the process as they begin reviewing. This initiative will add to growing efforts by the Journal of Pediatric Urology and Neurourology and Urodynamics to recruit and prepare the next generation of peer reviewers in urology.

Whether you are a resident looking to try peer reviewing or currently a reviewer interested in mentorship, we invite you join us for the first webinar on September 1, 2023.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Dr Sam Chang for the initial advice and encouragement.