Journal article Open Access

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

Ketevan Glonti; Daniel Cauchi; Erik Cobo; Isabelle Boutron; David Moher; Darko Hren


MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Peer review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20200120172812.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="001">1044491</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Daniel Cauchi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Erik Cobo</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Isabelle Boutron</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">David Moher</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Darko Hren</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">305842</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:9e95bc469595d4fba0a90cf819dbf8d3</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/1044491/files/bmjopen-2017-017468.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2017-11-09</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">user-miror</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:1044491</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="4">
    <subfield code="p">BMJ Open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-9991-7991</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Ketevan Glonti</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">user-miror</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="536" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">676207</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Methods in Research on Research</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction&lt;/strong&gt; The primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Methods&lt;/strong&gt; We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the ‘Population–Concept–Context’ framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition, we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Ethics and dissemination&lt;/strong&gt; This scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved &lt;br&gt;
in peer review in biomedical research.&lt;/p&gt;</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017468</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">article</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
81
92
views
downloads
Views 81
Downloads 92
Data volume 28.1 MB
Unique views 74
Unique downloads 88

Share

Cite as