Glonti Ketevan, Cauchi Daniel, Cobo Erik, Boutron Isabelle, Moher David, Hren Darko
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
METHODS Team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Centre, UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France.
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 22;7(10):e017468. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017468.
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.
We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac 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.
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.
同行评审员的主要职责定义不明确。到目前为止,尚无文献系统地确定生物医学期刊同行评审员的角色和任务。明确这些职责有助于改进同行评审过程。本范围综述的目的是确定关于同行评审员角色和任务的已知情况。
我们将使用Arksey和O'Malley首次提出、随后由Levac及乔安娜·布里格斯研究所修改的方法框架。范围综述将包括所有研究设计,以及社论、评论和灰色文献。将检索以下八个电子数据库(从建库至2017年5月):考克兰图书馆、护理学与健康相关文献累积索引、教育资源信息中心、EMBASE、医学期刊数据库、心理学文摘数据库、Scopus和科学引文索引。两名评审员将根据“人群 - 概念 - 背景”框架使用纳入和排除标准,独立筛选考虑纳入文章的标题和摘要。两名评审员还将对相关合格文章进行全文筛选。灰色文献的检索策略将包括在现有网络、生物医学期刊出版商以及为同行评审员提供资源的组织的网站上进行搜索。此外,我们将审查期刊给同行评审员的关于如何进行稿件评审的指南。将使用2016年期刊影响因子来选择期刊。我们将确定并评估所有医学专业中排名前五、中间五和排名最低的五本期刊。
本范围综述将对已收集的数据进行二次分析,无需伦理批准。研究结果将通过面向生物医学研究同行评审相关利益者的期刊和会议进行传播。