Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review

• Evidence synthesis (including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and more) involves many complementary areas of expertise: methods, information retrieval, statistics, and clinical knowledge. • Few individual peer reviewers have all the requisite knowledge to evaluate all aspects of evidence synt...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nyhan, Kate, Nardini, Holly K. Grossetta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Neoplasia Press 2021
Materias:
Letters to the Editor
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944096/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33706230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101060
_version_ 1783662627161899008
author Nyhan, Kate
Nardini, Holly K. Grossetta
author_facet Nyhan, Kate
Nardini, Holly K. Grossetta
author_sort Nyhan, Kate
collection PubMed
description • Evidence synthesis (including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and more) involves many complementary areas of expertise: methods, information retrieval, statistics, and clinical knowledge. • Few individual peer reviewers have all the requisite knowledge to evaluate all aspects of evidence synthesis manuscripts. • Segmented peer review as proposed by Dinakaran et al offers a good solution to the challenges of rigorously peer reviewing evidence synthesis manuscripts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7944096
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Neoplasia Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79440962021-03-17 Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review Nyhan, Kate Nardini, Holly K. Grossetta Transl Oncol Letters to the Editor • Evidence synthesis (including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and more) involves many complementary areas of expertise: methods, information retrieval, statistics, and clinical knowledge. • Few individual peer reviewers have all the requisite knowledge to evaluate all aspects of evidence synthesis manuscripts. • Segmented peer review as proposed by Dinakaran et al offers a good solution to the challenges of rigorously peer reviewing evidence synthesis manuscripts. Neoplasia Press 2021-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7944096/ /pubmed/33706230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101060 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Letters to the Editor
Nyhan, Kate
Nardini, Holly K. Grossetta
Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
title Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
title_full Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
title_fullStr Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
title_full_unstemmed Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
title_short Evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
title_sort evidence synthesis papers would benefit from segmented peer review
topic Letters to the Editor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944096/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33706230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101060
work_keys_str_mv AT nyhankate evidencesynthesispaperswouldbenefitfromsegmentedpeerreview
AT nardinihollykgrossetta evidencesynthesispaperswouldbenefitfromsegmentedpeerreview

Ejemplares similares