Table 4

Example overview of a facilitator's case notes

Case title:	Confidentiality and collegiality, peer review
	RCR: peer review, conflict of interests Principle of practice: community of science, research reproducibility Virtue: accountability and altruism

Learning objectives	Explain the roles of an author, reviewer and editor in the peer review of a manuscript. Discuss how scientists, as members of the community of science, have an obligation to serve as reviewers of research in order to move knowledge forward and to ensure the veracity of results and technology. Compare and contrast peer review of journal articles with research grant applications. Deduce some obligations of reviewers (eg, confidentiality, objectivity, fairness of review and reviewing within their scope of expertise). Examine how conflict of interest is a major ethical issue for peer review—for example, institutional affiliation, relationships with colleagues (past or present), scientific bias (including opposing theories), financial impact of data. Discover ethical issues in peer review—for example, using results prior to open publication, unfair critique, reviewing without an editor's approval, reviewing without appropriate expertise, difficulty remaining objective, giving insider information on a grant or paper outcome. Synthesise the elements of a good review—for example, being timely, critiquing the experimental design, assessing the strengths/limitations, judging the appropriateness of the analysis, accurate interpretation of the findings, conclusions, significance, and quality of references. Recommend ways to deal with controversies or conflicts that might arise in the process of authorship or peer review.

Synopsis	Students are placed in the scenario as a finishing graduate student in the lab of a frequent journal reviewer. PI asks student to review three manuscripts that the PI is unable to complete in a timely manner. Two are not challenging because the student is familiar with the labs and their work; the third paper is outside the student's expertise, so he asks a postdoc expert for help. The case is used to expose policies, limitations and roles for appropriate manuscript review. Session 2 builds on principles of peer review by placing the students as a senior postdoctoral fellow in a lab invited to be an ad hoc reviewer for a study section. Short vignettes describe some tensions of peer review. Proposal 1: The reviewer knows the applicant and has negative results of their own that show the applicant's experiments are conceptually flawed. Proposal 2: Gives the reviewer a great idea to begin new experiments of his own. Proposal 3: The applicant references preliminary data using a reagent the reviewer's lab developed but the reviewer is unsure how the applicant could have got ten those reagents. Proposal 4: A less than meritorious application from a minority applicant. Proposal 5: Poses whether to reveal insight into the review results to the applicant, a close colleague.

Moral reflection	Moral motivation and commitment Students are asked to identify best practices of peer review and those actions that are outside the ethical bounds of the profession of scientists.

Assignment	Students develop the following: A list of activities for which the scientific community practices peer review—that is, journals, grant proposals, promotion, committees. Describe the typical practices and the key roles in these activities (eg, editor, reviewer). A list of essential key elements of a good peer review. A list of the greatest ethical risks in a peer review, and how to mitigate those risks. An example within their discipline of an ethical issue within peer review.

PI, principal investigator; RCR, responsible conduct of research.