Glonti Ketevan, Hren Darko
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
INSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of therapeutic evaluation of chronic diseases Team (METHODS), Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 18;8(10):e020568. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020568.
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.
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.
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.
尽管稿件同行评审过程涉及科学成果，且可能对发表研究的质量产生影响，但该过程本身有时也因“不科学”而受到批评。研究表明，同行评审过程存在社会和主观层面，这导致了这种看法，包括关键利益相关者（即作者、编辑和同行评审员）之间的沟通方式。特别是，有人提出，如果要改进稿件评审过程，需要更明确地界定和传达利益相关者的预期角色和任务。梳理当前的沟通实践，并概述主要行为者的具体角色和任务，可能是朝着设计干预措施迈出的第一步，这些干预措施可抵消社会对同行评审过程的影响。本文的目的是提出一种定性研究的方法设计，从期刊编辑的角度探索生物医学期刊稿件评审过程中的沟通实践。
将于2017年10月至2018年2月期间对生物医学期刊的编辑进行半结构化访谈。将通过目的抽样中的最大变异抽样，从专业联系人网络、出版商、会议参与者以及滚雪球抽样中选取代表广泛生物医学期刊的异质样本参与者。访谈将按照布劳恩和克拉克概述的方法进行主题分析。将使用定性数据分析软件NVivo V.11辅助数据管理和分析。
该研究项目于2017年5月经斯普利特大学医学院伦理委员会（2181 - 198 - 03 - 04 - 17 - 0029）评估并批准。研究结果将通过在同行评审期刊上发表以及在会议上进行展示的方式进行传播。
