Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: Surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

BMJ Open

Volumn 8, Issue 9, 2018, Pages

  Schroter, Sara ^a   Price, Amy ^a,b   Flemyng, Ella ^c   Demaine, Andrew ^d   Elliot, Jim ^d   Harmston, Rebecca R ^d   Richards, Tessa ^a   Staniszewska, Sophie ^e,f   Stephens, Richard ^e  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c SPRINGER   (New Zealand)

^d Patient and Public Reviewer   (United Kingdom)

^e Research Involvement and Engagement   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

patients, public, patient and public involvement; peer review

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; SKILL; VIDEORECORDING; VOICE; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; MOTIVATION; PATIENT; PUBLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; PATIENTS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85053190197     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
2. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC 2014;25:227-43.
3. Wager E, Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing 2001;14:257-63.
4. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2784-6.
5. Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Jamali HR, et al. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing 2015;28:15-21.
6. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Three decades of peer review congresses. JAMA 2018;319:350-3.
7. Godlee F, Introduction JT, In Godlee F, Jefferson T, et al. eds. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003. xiii-xv.
8. South A, Hanley B, Gafos M, et al. Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies. Trials 2016;17:376.
9. Richards T, Godlee F. The BMJ's own patient journey. BMJ 2014;348:g3726.
10. Richards T, Snow R, Schroter S. Logging The BMJ' s "patient journey". BMJ 2015;348:h4396.
11. Stephens R, Staniszewska S. One small step⋯. Res Involv Engagem 2015;1:1.
12. Stephens R, Staniszewska S. Research involvement and engagement: reflections so far and future directions. Res Involv Engagem 2017;3:24.
13. Rawat S, Meena S. Publish or perish: where are we heading? J Res Med Sci 2014;19:87-9.
14. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
15. Ware M. Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking 2011;16:23-53.
16. Warne V. Rewarding reviewers -sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing 2016;29:41-50.
17. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013;64:132-61.
18. Staniszewska S, Stephens R, Schroter S, et al. Patient peer review in academic journals: developing guidance with The BMJ and research involvement and engagement. Res Involv Engagem 2017;3(Suppl 1):29.
19. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014;383:156-65.
20. Minogue V, Cooke M, Donskoy AL, et al. Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Res Involv Engagem 2018;4:5.
21. James Lind Alliance. About the James Lind Alliance. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind-alliance.
22. Staley K, Elliott J. Public involvement could usefully inform ethical review, but rarely does: what are the implications? Res Involv Engagem 2017;3:30.
23. Briefing note eight: disseminating research. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypecycle/disseminating.
24. Armstrong MJ, Bloom JA. Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Res Involv Engagem 2017;3:19.
25. Staley K, Doherty C. It's not evidence, it's insight: bringing patients' perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Res Involv Engagem 2016;2:4.
26. Price A, Schroter S, Snow R, et al. Frequency of reporting on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020452.