JCMSA’s Peer Reviewer Mentoring Program (New Reviewer Onboarding & Quality Support)
Pre-Selected and Pre-Screened by The Colleges of Medicine of South Africa (CMSA)
Applies to: Journal of the Colleges of Medicine of South Africa
Effective Date: 28 July 2026
Review Cycle: Annual (or after major process changes)
Program Lead: Prof. Soraya Seedat and Dr Veshni Pillay-Fuentes Lorente
Purpose
To support new reviewers in delivering high-quality, timely, scientific and ethical peer reviews by pairing them with experienced reviewers (“mentors”) for the first 1–3 assignments.
The program aims to:
• Build confidence and consistency
• Reduce time to competency
• Enhance review quality and alignment with journal standards
• Improve reviewer retention and satisfaction
Scope
• Included: Selected reviewers referred through CMSA’s Young Specialists Forum (first 3 reviews)
• Excluded: Editors, editorial board reviewers already trained to journal standards and current reviewers and editors or associated in other journals
• Related documents: Reviewer Guidelines, Ethical Guidelines (COPE-aligned), Confidentiality Policy, Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy
Definitions
• Senior Reviewer: Experienced reviewer meeting quality and timeliness criteria, trained to mentor.
• New Reviewer: First-time or reactivated reviewer with limited recent experience.
• Shadow Review: A parallel, learning-only review by the new reviewer; the Peer Reviewer Mentee submits the official review for the first 3 reviews.
Roles & Responsibilities
Editor in chief (EIC) and Deputy editor
• Approves Peer Reviewer Mentoring pool and matches pairings
• Oversees timelines, escalations, and quality monitoring
• Sends onboarding materials and tracks metrics
Associate Editor and Section Editor (SE)
• Selects manuscripts appropriate for training
• Provides short feedback on completed reviews
• Confirms when the reviewer is ready to graduate to become a JCMSA peer reviewer
Mentee and Senior Reviewer
• Completes review independently and on time
• Provides structured guidance and short debrief
• Flags concerns to EIC and SE (ethics, quality, delays)
• Arrange a touch base to discuss the review with the new reviewer and identify areas of development. A discussion between the Peer Reviewer Mentor and the YSF reviewer to enable and encourage peer learning and reflection. This will ensure that the new reviewer receives constructive feedback.
New Reviewer
• Completes training and follows checklists
• Shares draft review with mentee on time and seek clarification early
• Maintains confidentiality and declares COI
Eligibility & Matching
Peer Reviewer Mentee Eligibility
• Experienced Peer Reviewer average timeliness 90% on time
• Quality score 4/5 (from SE quality guidelines)
• Willingness to mentor and meet timelines
Matching Criteria
• Topic/subject alignment
• Methodological familiarity (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods)
• Availability within review window
• Avoid prior COI or close collaborations
Timelines & Service Level Agreements
• Assignment acceptance: within 7 days
• Review due date: 14 days (or journal standard)
• Mentor feedback to new reviewer: within 7 days of receiving draft
Confidentiality & Ethics
• All manuscripts and reviews are confidential. AOSIS recently updated the AI policy to address a gap concerning the use of AI tools during the peer review process. Reviewers are not permitted to submit unpublished manuscript content to AI systems. This update is intended to safeguard author copyrights and maintain the confidentiality of the review process.
• No use of manuscript content for personal work prior to publication.
• Conflict of Interest must be declared by both mentor and new reviewer at assignment.
• Follow COPE-aligned standards on authorship, plagiarism, and reviewer conduct.
Quality Standards (What “Good” Looks Like)
• Structure: summary of paper, major issues (methods, ethics and analysis), minor issues (clarity and style), clear recommendations.
• Tone: constructive, respectful, specific, evidence-based.
• Rigor: methodological critique with actionable suggestions.
• Fairness: unbiased, transparent about uncertainty.
• Compliance: adheres to journal templates, confidentiality, and deadlines. |
