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‐...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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