A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Glonti, Ketevan ^a,b,c   Cauchi, Daniel ^d   Cobo, Erik ^e   Boutron, Isabelle ^b,c   Moher, David ^f   Hren, Darko ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^b PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^d Ministry of Health   (Malta)

^e UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^f OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomedical publishing; Competencies; Peer review; Roles; Scoping review; Tasks

Indexed keywords

CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCINFO; PUBLISHING; SCOPUS; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85032342185     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017468     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263:1321.
2. Harley D. Scholarly communication: cultural contexts, evolving models. Science 2013;342:80-2.
3. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 2002;287:2786.
4. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? Lancet 2016;387:1573-86.
5. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96-7.
6. Scarfe WC. Translation of the scientific method ⋯ peer review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 2010;109:485-7.
7. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, et al. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician 2015;18:E1-14.
8. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 2010;5:e10072.
9. Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, et al. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Med 2016;14:16.
10. Moher D, Altman DG. Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001864.
11. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013;64:132-61.
12. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
13. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? a survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
14. Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP, et al. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh 2010;42:58-65.
15. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences. BMJ Books London 2003.
16. Wager E, Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learn Publ 2001;14:257-63.
17. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, et al. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013;64:2-17.
18. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2016;14:85.
19. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673.
20. PubPeer-What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? [Internet]. https://pubpeer.com/publica tions/54CDC916 1958 EBE471CC7A633C236B (accessed 20 Nov 2016).
21. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med 2015;13:158.
22. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19-32.
23. Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, et al. "Scoping the scope" of a cochrane review [Internet]. http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org (accessed 7 Dec 2016).
24. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev 2015;4:183.
25. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.
26. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69.
27. Joanna Briggs Institute. The joanna briggs institute reviewers' manual 2015. Methodol JBI Scoping Rev Joanna Briggs Inst JBI 2015.
28. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995;123:A12-13.
29. Larson BP, Chung KC. A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts. Hand 2012;7:37-44.
30. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40-6.
31. Free Online Course on Journal Peer Review. Cochrane eyes and vision [Internet]. eyes. cochrane. org/free-online-course-journal-peerreview (accessed 7 Feb 2017).
32. Home [Internet]. Publons. http://home. publons. com/(accessed 3 Apr 2017).
33. Research Digest | METRICS [Internet]. http://metrics. stanford. edu/resources/research-digest (accessed 21 Feb 2017).
34. Reporting guidelines under development. The EQUATOR network [Internet]. http://www. equator-network. org/library/reportingguidelines-under-development/(accessed 21 Dec 2016).
35. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:15.