Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: A qualitative study

BMJ Open

Volumn 9, Issue 11, 2019, Pages

  Glonti, Ketevan ^a,b   Boutron, Isabelle ^b   Moher, David ^c   Hren, Darko ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^b INSERM   (France)

^c OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

biomedical publishing; peer review; qualitative research; scientific journal publishing; stakeholder consultation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; EDITOR; EXPECTATION; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; WRITING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PUBLICATION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE;

EID: 85075572196     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, et al. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017468.
2. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med 2017;15:167.
3. Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, et al. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMC Med 2019;17:118.
4. 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;13:1.
5. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J 2012;53:386-9.
6. Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Carter SM, et al. Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:1056-63.
7. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349-57.
8. Glonti K, Hren D. Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020568.
9. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 2002: 209-339.
10. Projet MiRoR. An innovative and ambitious joint doctoral training programme. Available: http:// miror-ejd. eu/
11. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, et al. The eighth international Congress on peer review and biomedical publication: a call for research. JAMA 2015;313:2031-2.
12. Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 1995;18:179-83.
13. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101.
14. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?. an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18:59-82.
15. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, et al. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the Trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods 2017;16.
16. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newburry Park, 1985: 9. 438-9.
17. Dickersin K, Ssemanda E, Mansell C, et al. 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.
18. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?. Brain 2000;123:1964-9.
19. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, et al. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2013;64:2-17.
20. 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.
21. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines?. A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One 2012;7:e35621.
22. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of Journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007;4:e40.
23. Kliewer MA, Freed KS, DeLong DM, et al. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology 2005;184:1731-5.
24. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, et al. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-8.
25. Stossel TP. Reviewer status and review quality. N Engl J Med 1985;312:658-9.
26. Black N, Rooyen S, Godlee F. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical Journal?. JAMA 1998;280.
27. Superchi C, González JA, Solà I, et al. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:48.
28. Rodríguez-Carrio J, Putrik P, Sepriano A, et al. Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET peer review mentoring program. RMD Open 2018;4:e000619.
29. 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.
30. Lee CJ, Moher D. Promote scientific integrity via Journal peer review data. Science 2017;357:256-7.
31. Casnici N, Grimaldo F, Gilbert N, et al. Attitudes of Referees in a multidisciplinary Journal: an empirical analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017;68:1763-71.
32. Zaharie MA, Osoian CL. Peer review motivation frames: a qualitative approach. Eur Manage J 2016;34:69-79.
33. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review?. A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
34. Willis M. Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts?. A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned Publishing 2016;29:5-7.
35. University of Glasgow. Academic promotion criteria research scientist grades 7-9, University of Glasgow. Available: https://www. gla. ac. uk/ media/ media-498056-en. pdf
36. Academic, review P, Comments R policy. Peer review is not just quality control, it is part of the social infrastructure of research. impact of social sciences, 2019. Available: https:// blogs. lse. ac. uk/ impa ctof soci alsc iences/ 2019/ 06/ 12/ peer-review-is-not-just-quality-control-it-is-part-of-the-socialinfrastructure-of-research/ [Accessed 28 Jun 2019].
37. Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, et al. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol 2018;16:e2004089.