Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

ObjectiveIn 2014/2015,The BMJandResearch Involvement and Engagement(RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers.DesignA cross-sectional survey.Setting and participantsPatient and public reviewers forThe BMJandRIEwho have been invited to review.ResultsThe response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings.ConclusionsPatient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them.

Download Full-text

To see or not to see: a cross‐sectional study suggesting lack of bias towards authors in the peer review process

British Journal of Dermatology ◽

10.1111/bjd.20607 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

H. Daou ◽

L. Gu ◽

S.R. Lipner

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anthony Chauvin ◽

Philippe Ravaud ◽

David Moher ◽

David Schriger ◽

Sally Hopewell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Early Career ◽

Diagnostic Study ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Link Type ◽

The Mean

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Download Full-text

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie ◽

10.1007/s00066-020-01729-2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Lukas Käsmann ◽

◽

Annemarie Schröder ◽

Benjamin Frey ◽

Daniel F. Fleischmann ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Radiation Oncology ◽

Working Group ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Free Access ◽

Scientific Content ◽

Double Blind ◽

Blind Review ◽

Scientific Background

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

Download Full-text

Open science in practice: 300 published research ideas and outcomes illustrate how RIO Journal facilitates engagement with the research process

Research Ideas and Outcomes ◽

10.3897/rio.7.e68595 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Mietchen ◽

Lyubomir Penev ◽

Teodor Georgiev ◽

Boriana Ovcharova ◽

Iva Kostadinova

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Research Process ◽

Open Science ◽

Societal Challenges ◽

Research Cycle ◽

Zoom In ◽

Published Research

Since Research Ideas and Outcomes was launched in late 2015, it has stimulated experimentation around the publication of and engagement with research processes, especially those with a strong open science component. Here, we zoom in on the first 300 RIO articles that have been published and elucidate how they relate to the different stages and variants of the research cycle, how they help address societal challenges and what forms of engagement have evolved around these resources, most of which have a nature and scope that would prevent them from entering the scholarly record via more traditional journals. Building on these observations, we describe some changes we recently introduced in the policies and peer review process at RIO to further facilitate engagement with the research process, including the establishment of an article collections feature that allows us to bring together research ideas and outcomes from within one research cycle or across multiple ones, irrespective of where they have been published.

Download Full-text

Wiki-Mediated Peer Review Process

ePedagogy in Online Learning ◽

10.4018/978-1-4666-3649-1.ch009 ◽

2013 ◽

pp. 134-155 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Long V. Nguyen

Keyword(s):

Collaborative Learning ◽

Foreign Language ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Central Vietnam ◽

Bachelor Of Arts ◽

Efl Students ◽

User Friendly ◽

High Degree

The focus of this chapter is to explore if the collaborative potential offered by wikis translates into actual practice. The study examines the peer review process of 20 groups of English as a foreign language (EFL) students from two classes, i.e. a paper-based class and a wiki class, of a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) programme in a large university in Central Vietnam. Data analysis shows that the user-friendly wikis afford learning opportunities in two levels of analysis, namely participation and interaction, which lead to a high degree of information synthesis in the collaborative learning process. In terms of quantity, the multi-way nature of wiki-based exchanges confirms its characteristic of an architecture of participation. Likewise, the quality of the online peer review process is confidently affirmed in all three themes of collaborative interaction, i.e., socioaffective, organizational, and sociocognitive. It is concluded that the online platform of wikis turns the peer review process into a networking of both the academic and the social, and that wikis support a non-linear nature of collaborative learning.

Download Full-text

Editorial Policies Overview

10.32604/tsp-crossmarkpolicy ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

John Chen

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Free Access ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

Editorial Policies ◽

Scientific Experts ◽

Open Access Publisher ◽

Single Blind

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

Download Full-text