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

BMC Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2019, 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 UNIVERSITY OF MALTA   (Malta)

^e UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^f OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomedical; Competencies; Journal; Peer reviewer; Roles; Scoping review; Tasks

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EDITOR; EMBASE; ETHICS; GREY LITERATURE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION CENTER; LANGUAGE; MEDLINE; PSYCINFO; PUBLICATION; RESPECT; SCOPUS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE; PEER REVIEW; PROCEDURES;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85067601838     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Folse SB, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(1). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443635.
2. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):85.
3. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272(2):96-7.
4. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PM, Korevaar DA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573-86.
5. Moher D, Altman DG. Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Med. 2015;12(9):e1001864.
6. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Barnes C, Boutron I. 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(1):1.
7. 2.3 Reviewer roles and responsibilities - Council of Science Editors [Internet]. [cited 2018 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/
8. Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-Syer S, Cobey K, Cumpston M, et al. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Med. 2016;14:16.
9. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, Barbour V, Bartolomeos K, Baskin P, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):167.
10. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32.
11. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci IS. 2010;5:69.
12. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015. Methodol JBI Scoping Rev Joanna Briggs Inst JBI. 2015
13. Glonti K, Hren D. Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e020568.
14. Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, Boutron I, Moher D, Hren D. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e017468.
15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2018 Sep 4 [cited 2018 Sep 25]; Available from: http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M18-0850
16. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-6.
17. Rennie D, Knoll E, Flangrin A. The international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA [Internet]. 1989;261. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1989.03420050099049
18. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Bloom T. The eighth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication: a call for research. JAMA. 2015;313(20):2031-2.
19. Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1056-7.
20. Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Odibo AO, Chauhan SP, Smulian JC, Oyelese Y. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):703 e1-5.
21. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2-17.
22. Dickersin K, Ssemanda E, Mansell C, Rennie D. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:44.
23. Cintas P. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2016;363(12):fnw115. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnw115.
24. Davis CH, Bass BL, Behrns KE, Lillemoe KD, Garden OJ, Roh MS, et al. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3(1):4.
25. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166387.
26. Galipeau J, Cobey KD, Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-Syer S, Deeks J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors' perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. F1000Research [Internet]. 2017 Sep 4 [cited 2019 Jan 15];6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5605946/
27. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(1):9-12.
28. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research [Internet]. 2017 Aug 31 [cited 2019 Apr 9];6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437951/
29. Bar-on ME, Konopasek L. Snippets: an innovative method for efficient, effective faculty development. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(2):207-10.