# Supporting medical physics resident development through mentored journal peer review experiences

## TL;DR

This paper provides guidance for mentors to help medical physics residents gain experience in peer review, enhancing their critical thinking and academic engagement.

## Contribution

The paper introduces actionable strategies for integrating mentored peer review into medical physics residency training.

## Key findings

- Mentored peer review helps residents develop critical appraisal and scholarly communication skills.
- Structured guidance for mentors can improve residents' understanding of ethical and professional peer review practices.
- Peer review experiences support residents' professional identity and engagement in academic service.

## Abstract

Although medical physics residents frequently engage with academic literature, many have limited exposure to the peer review process from the reviewer's perspective. Mentored peer review offers a structured, accessible opportunity for residents to develop critical appraisal skills, understand scholarly communication workflows, and participate in academic service. However, many faculty mentors and residency programs lack clear guidance on how to support residents through this process. This work outlines how medical physics residency educators can support a mentored peer review experience for medical physics residents.

Identifying and explaining key components of the peer review process.Demonstrating the ability to draft a structured, ethical peer review.Reflecting on how peer review supports scholarly growth and professional identity formation.

Identifying and explaining key components of the peer review process.

Demonstrating the ability to draft a structured, ethical peer review.

Reflecting on how peer review supports scholarly growth and professional identity formation.

This article outlines actionable strategies to help mentors integrate peer review into medical physics residency training. Topics include orienting residents to editorial workflows, modeling professional feedback, emphasizing ethics, and building independence. These strategies are grounded in published literature and professional best practices and aim to cultivate both competent reviewers and reflective, engaged contributors to the medical physics scholarly community.