This week the BioMedCentral blog put together a quiz to test how good you are at assessing the best course of action when faced with tricky peer review scenarios. These scenarios make for a fun exercise, but similar situations can and are encountered by you when invited to review manuscripts. However (like many other tasks that are asked from researchers) very few people receive formal training on how to review a manuscript. Of course, a lot of what makes a good reviewer is also what makes a good experimentalist, but how best to avoid conflict of interests, biases or becoming the dreaded third reviewer? Should formal training be provided by universities (e.g. during graduate school or postdoc) or by journals when a new reviewer is invited? Should it be the responsibility of mentors? Or should the community put together a set of guidelines that everyone agrees to follow? In other words:
What is the best way to encourage good peer reviewing?
Share your thoughts by leaving a comment below! You can comment anonymously if you prefer. We are also collating answers on social media via this Storify. And if you have any ideas for future questions please drop us an email!