Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance. Datasets

Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers, because they can enhance methodologies in evidence synthesis. We sought to determine if and how librarians’ comments differed from subject peer-reviewers’; whether there were differences in the implementation of their recommendations; how this impacted editorial decision-making, and the perceived utility of librarian peer review by librarians and authors.  We used a mixed method approach, conducting a qualitative analysis of reviewer reports, author replies and editors’ decisions of submissions to the International Journal of Health Governance. Our content analysis categorized 16 thematic areas so methodological and subject peer-reviewers’ comments, decisions and rejection rates could be compared. Categories were based on the standard areas covered in peer-review (e.g., title, originality, etc.) as well as additional in-depth categories relating to the methodology (e.g., search strategy, reporting guidelines, etc.). We developed and used criteria to judge reviewers’ perspectives and code their comments. Methodological peer-reviewers assessed 13 evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted between September 2020 and March 2023. 55 reviewer reports were collected: 25 from methodological peer-reviewers, 30 from subject peer-reviewers.