Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
  1. Ketevan Glonti1,2,3,
  2. Daniel Cauchi4,
  3. Erik Cobo5,
  4. Isabelle Boutron2,3,
  5. David Moher6,
  6. Darko Hren1
  1. 1 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia
  2. 2 METHODS Team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Centre, UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France
  3. 3 Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
  4. 4 Ministry of Health, Valletta, Malta
  5. 5 Statistics and Operations Research Department, Barcelona-Tech,Universitat Politecnica Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
  6. 6 Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Ketevan Glonti; kglonti{at}unist.hr

Abstract

Introduction 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.

Methods 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.

Ethics and dissemination 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 in peer review in biomedical research.

  • Peer review
  • Competencies
  • Scoping review
  • Roles
  • Tasks
  • Biomedical publishing

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors have made substantive intellectual contributions to the development of this protocol. KG, DH, EC, IB and DM jointly conceived the idea for the project. DC, EC, IB, DM and DH contributed to the study design and development of research questions. KG conceptualised the review approach and led the writing of the manuscript. DH led the supervision of the manuscript preparation. All authors provided detailed comments on earlier drafts and approved this manuscript.

  • Funding This project was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no 676207. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.