The mission of The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (TAVB) is to publish innovative, data-based, conceptual articles on a behavior-analytic approach to language. The journal was developed by the Verbal Behavior Special Interest Group (VBSIG) members, who met annually at the Midwestern Association for Behavior Analysis and Association for Behavior Analysis conferences to discuss teaching and research based on Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior (1957). Members of the VBSIG believed they would be better prepared to teach from Verbal Behavior if a newsletter, which subsequently transitioned to TAVB in 1985, was available to “improve the instructional technology, foster the exchange of materials, and promote research in the verbal behavior area.” (Sundberg, 1997, p. 1). To ensure that readers of TAVB have timely access to cutting-edge research in verbal behavior, the editorial staff of the journal seek to promote a high-quality and timely peer-review process for manuscript submissions. An essential component of this process is the attainment of reviews from junior and senior scholars in the behavior-analytic community who have expertise in the application of behavioral principles to verbal behavior.

Most junior scholars typically learn to conduct reviews for scientific journals by simply doing it (Gough, 2009). This process is void of feedback or programmed immediate reinforcers—indeed, the only consequence of conducting good reviews is receiving more invitations to review at a later point. Nevertheless, practice (rehearsal) alone is not an effective method of learning. In contrast, feedback, which is lacking from the typical peer-review process described above, is highly effective for learning (Ward-Horner & Sturmey, 2012). As such, young scholars are likely faced with a slow learning curve in the absence of formal training that includes the effective components of behavioral skills training (i.e., feedback and, to a lesser degree, modeling).

It is for the aforementioned reasons that we developed a mentorship program to support junior scholars in learning to conduct reviews for scientific journals in behavior analysis. Several steps led to the development of the program. First, we conducted a literature review of research that evaluated editorial practices across disciplines. We learned that the training and mentorship of new reviewers across disciplines require further development. For example, in a survey of reviews for nursing journals, Freda et al. (2009) found that only 30% of reviewers received training. This training consisted of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops; of these, the most common method consisted of manuals. Further, Warne (2016) found that most reviewers (77%) would appreciate ongoing training, and the establishing operations for training are especially strong for new reviewers that have less than 5 years of experience (89%). Despite the need and establishing operations for training in conducting reviews for scientific journals, training methods produced mixed results (Bruce et al., 2016). Possibly, the mixed outcomes were due to variability in training methods, as well as the fact that the training did not always include the elements of behavioral skills training that are most effective—feedback and modeling (Ward-Horner & Sturmey, 2012). To address this limitation, we paired each junior scholar with a mentor who can provide modeling and feedback.

The next step was to conduct a survey of editorial practices in behavior analysis (Cengher & LeBlanc, in preparation). We distributed the survey to all editors, associate editors, and editorial board members of journals in behavior analysis that are sponsored by the Association for Behavior Analysis International or the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Our inclusion criterion was individuals who had served in the role of (guest) associate editor at least once. The survey enabled us to gather meaningful information about variables that associate editors consider when: (a) selecting reviewers, (b) selecting review panels, (c) evaluating the quality of reviews, and (d) making nominations for editorial board membership. We used the information obtained from this survey, along with other resources we gathered from our literature review, to inform the development of guidelines for writing reviews for scientific journals in behavior analysis. Next, we will disseminate our findings through online and in-person workshops on how to write reviews for scientific journals. These resources will be provided for free to mentors and mentees in our program.

One variable necessary for the success of any program is participation; as such, the last step to developing the program was to evaluate interest. We sent an email to current TAVB editorial board members. The email briefly described the goals and procedures of the program and asked about their interest to participate as mentors. Similarly, we sought interest in serving as mentees from junior scholars that were members of the VBSIG. We were encouraged by the number of people who expressed interest in participation and support for the program.

Based on interest from potential mentors and mentees, we developed the parameters of the program. We determined that mentors will be TAVB editorial board members, and mentees will be junior scholars who are within 10 years of obtaining their doctoral degree in behavior analysis and who are members of the VBSIG. Potential mentees and mentors completed an application form (Appendix 1 and 2). Two applicants (i.e., mentees) who met the requirements of the program were selected for participation and assigned a mentor. We anticipate staggering enrollment in the mentorship program to assign a proportion of submitted manuscripts to mentees and to engage in an iterative process of program development based on feedback from participants.

We will provide resources that will remain available to the mentor and mentees throughout the program. These resources will consist of articles describing the peer review process (e.g., Lovejoy et al., 2011), written guidelines, and an online workshop on writing reviews for scientific journals in behavior analysis (Cengher & LeBlanc, in preparation). Aside from these resources, the mentor and mentee can decide on the parameters of their collaboration, and how these parameters change in time depending on variables such as the mentee’s performance. For example, initially, a mentor may choose to instruct and model how to write reviews for the mentee. In time, the mentor may ask the mentee to review manuscripts independently and only provide feedback on the end product.

To ensure that the mentee receives credit for their review, and to avoid ghost authorship, the editor will assign manuscripts to be reviewed by the mentee. The mentee will share the manuscript with their mentor and they will work together on the review. Together, the mentor and the mentee will review three to five manuscripts throughout 1 year in the program; this number was informed by survey data indicating that junior scholars begin to feel competent after reviewing five manuscripts (Freda et al., 2009). If the mentor believes that the mentee needs additional support, they can inform the editor and the program can be extended on a case-by-case basis. One can request an assignment to a different mentor/mentee after completing three reviews, if re-assignments will allow the mentor/mentee to find a match that better supports their goals and professional development.

Each mentor will only be assigned one mentee. Serving as a mentor will be complementary to the mentor’s current editorial activity, and it is not meant to replace or reduce it. As such, we recommended that mentors choose to volunteer their time for this activity when their schedule allows it (e.g., when they do not serve as associate editors for TAVB or other journals).

Mentorship is often not associated with any reinforcers beyond supporting a junior scholar’s professional development. Indeed, the payback for good mentorship is paying it forward. Although these reinforcers should and often are potent, mentors will receive recognition for their service by listing their names on the TAVB and VBSIG websites. Furthermore, mentors and mentees will be encouraged to list this service on their curriculum vitae.

Finally, we will collect data to evaluate the effectiveness and social validity of the program. Our goal was to develop data collection systems that require low response effort from mentors and mentees. We developed a questionnaire (Appendix 3) to evaluate satisfaction, perceived knowledge, and confidence in writing reviews for scientific journals from mentees and mentors. In addition, we developed evaluation forms for reviews of empirical studies (Appendix 4) and literature reviews and conceptual papers (Appendix 5). These evaluation forms include considerations of the quality of the review, tone, professionalism, and timeliness. The mentors and mentees will have access to these evaluation forms throughout the program. The mentor and mentee will complete the social validity questionnaire at the beginning of the program and after the program. The mentor will be asked to complete an evaluation form after each manuscript reviewed with the mentee. These evaluations will enable us to monitor the effectiveness and perceived usefulness of the program from the perspective of the mentor and mentee.

In conclusion, the reviewer mentorship program was developed based on a need identified in our field, as well as empirical evidence on the editorial process across disciplines. We hope that the program will shape the peer-review skills of the next generation of reviewers and authors. We also hope that this program will continue to support the commitment to mentorship in higher education. The program was launched in July 2022.

References

Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2016). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5

Article  Google Scholar 

Cengher, M. & LeBlanc, L. (in preparation). Peer review in behavior-analytic journals.

Freda, M. C., Kearney, M. H., Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., & Dougherty, M. (2009). Peer reviewer training and editor support: Results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gough, N. R. (2009). Training for peer review. Science Signaling, 2(85), tr2–tr2. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.285tr2

Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Book  Google Scholar 

Sundberg, M. (1997). Editorial. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 1–3.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ward-Horner, J., & Sturmey, P. (2012). Component analysis of behavior skills training in functional analysis. Behavioral Interventions, 27(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1339

Article  Google Scholar 

Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers–sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002

Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Linda LeBlanc for her contributions to the design of materials and online training for the reviewer mentoring program. We also thank Einar Ingvarsson and Jonathan Baker who agreed to serve as the first mentors and the editorial board members who volunteered to serve in this role for future mentees.

Author informationAuthors and Affiliations

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

Mirela Cengher

Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Tiffany Kodak

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiffany Kodak.

Additional informationPublisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

AppendicesAppendix 1Application Form for Mentors 1)

Name

2)

Profession

3)

Affiliation

4)

With which race do you identify? (Select all that apply)

a.

American Indian or Alaskan Native.

b.

Asian.

c.

Black or African American.

d.

Hispanic or Latinx.

e.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

f.

White.

g.

Prefer not to answer.

h.

Specify: __________________

5)

With which gender do you identify?

a.

Cisgender woman.

b.

Cisgender man.

c.

Transgender woman.

d.

Transgender man.

e.

Gender non-binary.

f.

Prefer not to answer.

g.

Specify: __________________

6)

For how many years have you been conducting editorial work (i.e., served as an editorial board member, [guest] associate editor, or editor) for scientific journals?

a.

0–1 years

b.

2–5 years

c.

6–10 years

d.

11+ years

7)

What roles do you currently fulfill for the academic journal(s) that you serve? Select all that apply.

a.

Editorial board member

b.

Guest associate editor

c.

Associate editor

d.

Editor

e.

Other (please indicate):

8)

When would you like to begin serving as a mentor for TAVB? We will do our best to choose the times you indicated; however, we may not be able to accommodate all requests.

a.

June 2022 or after

b.

September 2022 or after

c.

January 2023 or after

d.

June 2023 or after

9)

If applicable, describe some characteristics that you look for in a mentee. Examples include demographic information (e.g., members of a specific underrepresented group, such as international scholars), a specific area of expertise, or specific career goals. We will do our best to match you with a mentee that has the specified characteristics.

Appendix 2Application form for Mentees 1.

Name

2.

Professional status (e.g., student, postdoc, assistant professor)

3.

Affiliation

4.

How many years of graduate training in behavior analysis do you currently have?

a.

0

b.

1–2

c.

3–5

d.

6+

5.

How many first or second-authored manuscripts have you published?

a.

0

b.

1–2

c.

3–5

d.

6+

6.

How many independent reviews have you conducted for scientific journals?

i.

0

ii.

1–2

iii.

3–5

iv.

6+

7.

With which race do you identify? (Select all that apply)

a. American Indian or Alaskan Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Hispanic or Latinx

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

f. White

g. Prefer not to answer

h. Specify: __________________

8.

With which gender do you identify?

a. Cisgender woman

b. Cisgender man

c. Transgender woman

d. Transgender man

e. Gender non-binary

f. Prefer not to answer

g. Specify: __________________

9.

When would you like to begin serving as a mentee for TAVB? We will do our best to choose the times you indicated; however, we may not be able to accommodate all requests.

e.

June 2022 or after

f.

September 2022 or after

g.

January 2023 or after

h.

June 2023 or after

10.

If applicable, describe some characteristics that you look for in a mentor. Examples include demographic information (e.g., members of specific underrepresented groups, such as international scholars), a specific area of expertise, or a specific profession. We will do our best to match you with a mentor that has the specified characteristics.

Appendix 3Social Validity Questionnaire

Rate the level of agreement with each statement below.

  Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree It is important to teach junior scholars to perform good reviews for scientific journals.       Mentoring is a good way to train junior scholars in writing reviews for scientific journals.       Access to guidelines can standardize and improve the peer-review process.       The mentoring program was effective in improving the quality of the reviews written by the mentee.       Providing service, such as serving as a mentor/mentee for a program like this, is important for my field and my professional development.       I would recommend this program to colleagues.      

Please answer the following open-ended questions:

1.

What did you like most about this mentorship program?

2.

What could we do to improve this program?

3.

Please feel free to share any other thoughts that you have.

Appendix 4Evaluation Form for Reviews of Empirical Studies

Rate your level of agreement with each statement below.

  Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N/A The reviewer evaluated whether the article makes a meaningful contribution to the field.        The reviewer evaluated whether the science underlying the main idea is strong (i.e., the aim or hypothesis is well funded).        The reviewer evaluated a study based on the rationale, method, and results, rather than one or just a few of these variables.        The review evaluated whether the research design was appropriate.        The reviewer evaluated whether the methods are explained well enough that the experiment can be replicated.        The reviewer evaluated whether the authors used the appropriate interpretative system (e.g., statistical analyses, visual inspection, effect sizes) to analyze the data.        The reviewer evaluated whether the authors interpreted the data in a conceptually systematic manner.        The reviewer noted whether the interpretation of the data is accurate.        The tone of the review was respectful and professional.        The reviewer’s comments are constructive and prescriptive.        The review was submitted on time (i.e., within 21 days of receiving the invitation).       This evaluation form was developed based on the survey described in Cengher and LeBlanc (in preparation) Appendix 5Evaluation Form for Reviews of Literature Reviews or Conceptual Articles

Rate your level of agreement with each statement below.

  Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N/A The reviewer evaluated whether there is a need for synthesis on the topic.        The reviewer evaluated whether the manuscript adequately sampled the literature (e.g., selection and inclusion of procedures, the scope of the search).        The reviewer evaluated whether the authors implemented the right data analysis procedures (e.g., interrater reliability, effect sizes).        The reviewer evaluated whether the study did more than summarize the research findings (e.g., synthesized directions for future research and clinical recommendations).        The review evaluated whether the discussion of the topic advances our understanding or makes us think differently about the topic.        The reviewer evaluated whether the conclusion about the literature or the topic is warranted given the strength of the arguments or literature.        The tone of the review was respectful and professional.        The reviewer’s comments are constructive and prescriptive.        The review was submitted on time (i.e., within 21 days of receiving the invitation).       This evaluation form was developed based on the survey described in Cengher and LeBlanc (in preparation) About this article