Cargando…
Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
BACKGROUND: Quality of the peer‐review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer‐review process of biomedical manuscripts. METHODS AND RESULTS: All randomized trials comparing different peer‐...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475712/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34278828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.019903 |
_version_ | 1784575463650230272 |
---|---|
author | Gaudino, Mario Robinson, N. Bryce Di Franco, Antonino Hameed, Irbaz Naik, Ajita Demetres, Michelle Girardi, Leonard N. Frati, Giacomo Fremes, Stephen E. Biondi‐Zoccai, Giuseppe |
author_facet | Gaudino, Mario Robinson, N. Bryce Di Franco, Antonino Hameed, Irbaz Naik, Ajita Demetres, Michelle Girardi, Leonard N. Frati, Giacomo Fremes, Stephen E. Biondi‐Zoccai, Giuseppe |
author_sort | Gaudino, Mario |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Quality of the peer‐review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer‐review process of biomedical manuscripts. METHODS AND RESULTS: All randomized trials comparing different peer‐review interventions at author‐, reviewer‐, and/or editor‐level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention‐modified peer‐review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer‐review process. Five‐hundred and seventy‐five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author‐level, 16 at reviewer‐level, and 3 at editor‐level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer‐review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta‐analysis, reviewer‐level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author‐ and editor‐level interventions did not significantly impact peer‐review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for duration). CONCLUSIONS: Modifications of the traditional peer‐review process at reviewer‐level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8475712 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84757122021-10-01 Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Gaudino, Mario Robinson, N. Bryce Di Franco, Antonino Hameed, Irbaz Naik, Ajita Demetres, Michelle Girardi, Leonard N. Frati, Giacomo Fremes, Stephen E. Biondi‐Zoccai, Giuseppe J Am Heart Assoc Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis BACKGROUND: Quality of the peer‐review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer‐review process of biomedical manuscripts. METHODS AND RESULTS: All randomized trials comparing different peer‐review interventions at author‐, reviewer‐, and/or editor‐level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention‐modified peer‐review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer‐review process. Five‐hundred and seventy‐five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author‐level, 16 at reviewer‐level, and 3 at editor‐level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer‐review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta‐analysis, reviewer‐level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author‐ and editor‐level interventions did not significantly impact peer‐review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for duration). CONCLUSIONS: Modifications of the traditional peer‐review process at reviewer‐level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8475712/ /pubmed/34278828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.019903 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis Gaudino, Mario Robinson, N. Bryce Di Franco, Antonino Hameed, Irbaz Naik, Ajita Demetres, Michelle Girardi, Leonard N. Frati, Giacomo Fremes, Stephen E. Biondi‐Zoccai, Giuseppe Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
title | Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
title_full | Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
title_fullStr | Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
title_short | Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis |
title_sort | effects of experimental interventions to improve the biomedical peer‐review process: a systematic review and meta‐analysis |
topic | Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475712/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34278828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.019903 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gaudinomario effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT robinsonnbryce effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT difrancoantonino effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hameedirbaz effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT naikajita effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT demetresmichelle effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT girardileonardn effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fratigiacomo effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fremesstephene effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT biondizoccaigiuseppe effectsofexperimentalinterventionstoimprovethebiomedicalpeerreviewprocessasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |