PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ketevan Glonti
AU  - Darko Hren
TI  - Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study
AID  - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020568
DP  - 2018 Oct 01
TA  - BMJ Open
PG  - e020568
VI  - 8
IP  - 10
4099  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/10/e020568.short
4100  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/10/e020568.full
SO  - BMJ Open2018 Oct 01; 8
AB  - Introduction Despite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being ‘unscientific’. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders—namely authors, editors and peer reviewers—communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors’ point of view.Methods and analysis Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis.Ethics and dissemination This research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.