Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Bruce, Rachel [verfasserIn] Chauvin, Anthony Trinquart, Ludovic Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	Peer review process Peer reviewers Systematic review Meta-analysis

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2016

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medicine - London : BioMed Central, 2003, 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:14 ; year:2016 ; number:1 ; day:10 ; month:06

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5

Katalog-ID:	SPR028358716

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR028358716
003	DE-627
005	20230519144322.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR028358716
035			\|a (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Bruce, Rachel \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2016
520			\|a Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals.
650		4	\|a Peer review process \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Peer reviewers \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Systematic review \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Meta-analysis \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Chauvin, Anthony \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Trinquart, Ludovic \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ravaud, Philippe \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Boutron, Isabelle \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC medicine \|d London : BioMed Central, 2003 \|g 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni \|w (DE-627)377271225 \|w (DE-600)2131669-7 \|x 1741-7015 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:14 \|g year:2016 \|g number:1 \|g day:10 \|g month:06
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 14 \|j 2016 \|e 1 \|b 10 \|c 06

Indexfelder

author_variant	r b rb a c ac l t lt p r pr i b ib
matchkey_str	article:17417015:2016----::matfnevnintipoehqaiyfereiwfimdclorassse
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 doi (DE-627)SPR028358716 (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Bruce, Rachel verfasserin aut Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. Peer review process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Peer reviewers (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chauvin, Anthony aut Trinquart, Ludovic aut Ravaud, Philippe aut Boutron, Isabelle aut Enthalten in BMC medicine London : BioMed Central, 2003 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni (DE-627)377271225 (DE-600)2131669-7 1741-7015 nnns volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2016 1 10 06
spelling	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 doi (DE-627)SPR028358716 (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Bruce, Rachel verfasserin aut Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. Peer review process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Peer reviewers (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chauvin, Anthony aut Trinquart, Ludovic aut Ravaud, Philippe aut Boutron, Isabelle aut Enthalten in BMC medicine London : BioMed Central, 2003 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni (DE-627)377271225 (DE-600)2131669-7 1741-7015 nnns volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2016 1 10 06
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 doi (DE-627)SPR028358716 (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Bruce, Rachel verfasserin aut Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. Peer review process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Peer reviewers (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chauvin, Anthony aut Trinquart, Ludovic aut Ravaud, Philippe aut Boutron, Isabelle aut Enthalten in BMC medicine London : BioMed Central, 2003 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni (DE-627)377271225 (DE-600)2131669-7 1741-7015 nnns volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2016 1 10 06
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 doi (DE-627)SPR028358716 (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Bruce, Rachel verfasserin aut Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. Peer review process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Peer reviewers (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chauvin, Anthony aut Trinquart, Ludovic aut Ravaud, Philippe aut Boutron, Isabelle aut Enthalten in BMC medicine London : BioMed Central, 2003 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni (DE-627)377271225 (DE-600)2131669-7 1741-7015 nnns volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2016 1 10 06
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 doi (DE-627)SPR028358716 (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Bruce, Rachel verfasserin aut Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. Peer review process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Peer reviewers (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chauvin, Anthony aut Trinquart, Ludovic aut Ravaud, Philippe aut Boutron, Isabelle aut Enthalten in BMC medicine London : BioMed Central, 2003 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni (DE-627)377271225 (DE-600)2131669-7 1741-7015 nnns volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2016 1 10 06
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC medicine 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC medicine 14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni volume:14 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:06
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Peer review process Peer reviewers Systematic review Meta-analysis
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC medicine
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Bruce, Rachel @@aut@@ Chauvin, Anthony @@aut@@ Trinquart, Ludovic @@aut@@ Ravaud, Philippe @@aut@@ Boutron, Isabelle @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-06-10T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	377271225
id	SPR028358716
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR028358716</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519144322.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR028358716</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bruce, Rachel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer review process</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer reviewers</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Systematic review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chauvin, Anthony</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Trinquart, Ludovic</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ravaud, Philippe</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boutron, Isabelle</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)377271225</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2131669-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1741-7015</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:10</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">10</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Bruce, Rachel
spellingShingle	Bruce, Rachel misc Peer review process misc Peer reviewers misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
authorStr	Bruce, Rachel
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)377271225
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1741-7015
topic_title	Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis Peer review process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Peer reviewers (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Peer review process misc Peer reviewers misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis
topic_unstemmed	misc Peer review process misc Peer reviewers misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis
topic_browse	misc Peer review process misc Peer reviewers misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC medicine
hierarchy_parent_id	377271225
hierarchy_top_title	BMC medicine
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)377271225 (DE-600)2131669-7
title	Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR028358716 (SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e
title_full	Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
author_sort	Bruce, Rachel
journal	BMC medicine
journalStr	BMC medicine
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Bruce, Rachel Chauvin, Anthony Trinquart, Ludovic Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle
container_volume	14
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Bruce, Rachel
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5
title_sort	impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_auth	Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
abstract	Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. © The Author(s). 2016
abstractGer	Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. © The Author(s). 2016
abstract_unstemmed	Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. © The Author(s). 2016
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5
remote_bool	true
author2	Chauvin, Anthony Trinquart, Ludovic Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle
author2Str	Chauvin, Anthony Trinquart, Ludovic Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle
ppnlink	377271225
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5
up_date	2024-07-03T18:57:48.981Z
_version_	1803585395341918208
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR028358716</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519144322.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR028358716</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12916-016-0631-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bruce, Rachel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Results We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, –0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Conclusion Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer review process</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer reviewers</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Systematic review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chauvin, Anthony</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Trinquart, Ludovic</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ravaud, Philippe</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boutron, Isabelle</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2016), 1 vom: 10. Juni</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)377271225</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2131669-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1741-7015</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:10</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">10</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400075

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?