A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal's instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.

Editors' perspectives on the selection of reviewers and the quality of reviews

This article describes the outcomes of a survey of 93 editors in chief and associate editors of behavior-analytic journals. We sought information about variables that influence their judgment of the selection of reviewers, selection of review panels, and quality of reviews. When selecting reviewers, participants rated highly expertise on the topic, history of conducting good reviews, and history of writing constructive and respectful reviews. When selecting review panels, participants rated highly stratifying reviewers based on their expertise, avoiding conflicts of interest, and the matching based on the area of expertise between reviewers and authors. When evaluating the quality of a review, participants rated highly considerations related to research design, the science underlying the main idea, and accurate interpretations of the data. Participants did not rate copyediting as important. Overall, the extent to which reviewer selection was influenced by membership in underrepresented groups varied. These findings can inform the development of training programs for teaching peer-review repertoires.

Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The advancement of universal health coverage (UHC) is largely based on identifying and addressing barriers to accessing community health services. Traditional qualitative research approaches provide excellent insights but have unfeasibly high resource requirements for most care providers.

AIM

To identify, categorise, and evaluate methods that have been used to identify barriers to and/or solutions for improving access to community-based health services, grounded in engagement with affected communities, excluding approaches that take >14 days.

DESIGN & SETTING

This was a scoping review.

METHOD

Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, a search was undertaken using the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Global Health, and Google Scholar. An information specialist designed the search, and dual independent review and data charting were used.

RESULTS

In total, 44 studies were included from 30 countries, reporting on 18 different clinical services. Thirty studies used self-described 'rapid' approaches; however, the majority of these did not justify what they meant by this term. Nearly half of the studies used mixed- or multi-methods and triangulation to verify early findings. All of the qualitative studies used interviews and/or focus groups, which were often supplemented with observations, document review, and mapping activities. The use of in situ snowball and convenience sampling; community members as data collectors and cultural guides; collaborative summarisation (review of findings with community members and end-users); and deductive framework analysis expedited the research processes. There were no data on costs.

CONCLUSION

There are a wide range of methods that can be used to deliver timely information about barriers to access. The methods employed in the articles reviewed tended to use traditional data collection approaches in innovative ways.

Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers

OBJECTIVES

To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based.

RESULTS

Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.

Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Despite having a crucial role in scholarly publishing, peer reviewers do not typically require any training. The purpose of this study was to conduct an international survey on the current perceptions and motivations of researchers regarding peer review training.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted of biomedical researchers. A total of 2000 corresponding authors from 100 randomly selected medical journals were invited via email. Quantitative items were reported using frequencies and percentages or means and SE, as appropriate. A thematic content analysis was conducted for qualitative items in which two researchers independently assigned codes to the responses for each written-text question, and subsequently grouped the codes into themes. A descriptive definition of each category was then created and unique themes-as well as the number and frequency of codes within each theme-were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 186 participants completed the survey of which 14 were excluded. The majority of participants indicated they were men (n = 97 of 170, 57.1%), independent researchers (n = 108 of 172, 62.8%), and primarily affiliated with an academic organization (n = 103 of 170, 62.8%). A total of 144 of 171 participants (84.2%) indicated they had never received formal training in peer review. Most participants (n = 128, 75.7%) agreed-of which 41 (32.0%) agreed strongly-that peer reviewers should receive formal training in peer review prior to acting as a peer reviewer. The most preferred training formats were online courses, online lectures, and online modules. Most respondents (n = 111 of 147, 75.5%) stated that difficulty finding and/or accessing training was a barrier to completing training in peer review.

CONCLUSION

Despite being desired, most biomedical researchers have not received formal training in peer review and indicated that training was difficult to access or not available.

Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVES

Low attendance rates for community health services reflect important barriers that prevent people from receiving the care they need. Services and health systems that seek to advance Universal Health Coverage need to understand and act on these factors. Formal qualitative research is the best way to elicit barriers and identify potential solutions, however traditional approaches take months to complete and can be very expensive. We aim to map the methods that have been used to rapidly elicit barriers to accessing community health services and identify potential solutions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Global Health for empirical studies that use rapid methods (<14 days) to elicit barriers and potential solutions from intended service beneficiaries. We will exclude hospital-based and 100% remotely delivered services. We will include studies conducted in any country from 1978 to present. We will not limit by language. Two reviewers will independently perform screening and data extraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We will tabulate the different approaches used and present data on time, skills and financial requirements for each approach, as well as the governance framework and any strengths and weaknesses presented by the study authors. We will follow Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidance and report the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. We will share our findings in the peer-reviewed literature, at conferences, and with WHO policymakers working in this space.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/a6r2m).

Physician-Scientists: Fixing the Leaking Pipeline - A Scoping Review

Introduction

This scoping review was undertaken to assess the current status of physician-scientists, including the challenges associated with their enrollment and retention, measures of success, and determinants of their satisfaction, all of which contribute to the dwindling numbers of physician-scientists aptly referred to as a "leaking pipeline" of physician-scientists.

Methods

A total of 2555 research documents from three databases, viz. Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, were selected. A total of 40 documents were considered for final analysis following the 5-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malle.

Results

Medical institutions should promote and sustain enrollments by addressing various perceived parameters of success and satisfaction. The challenge of attrition due to individual, regulatory, and sociocultural considerations also needs to be addressed.

Conclusions

Medical institutions should focus on establishing well-documented career tracks with provisions for career advancement, promotion of team science, raising mentors, giving preference to students with peer-reviewed publications for post graduate (PG) admissions, and establishing a separate office for career development and guidance for physician-scientist. It is equally important to address the factors which promote retention and prevent attrition, viz. measures of success and determinants of satisfaction. Additional measures include creating a cadre of physician-scientists in government organizations, fostering collaboration of physician-scientists with incubation centers and startups, and adding additional mandatory curriculum components focused on project-based training.

Online suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours talk: A scoping review protocol

The anonymity that the internet and social media affords users means that suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours can be talked about with a sense of freedom and disinhibition that is often not possible in face-to-face contexts. Better understanding online suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour talk is critical as more people turn to online spaces for support. Without this the potentiality of such spaces as sites for suicide prevention and intervention is likely to remain unrealised. Currently there are no scoping or systematic review syntheses focusing on internet and/or on social media suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour talk. This lack of synthesis is problematic as it makes it more difficult for online suicide prevention and intervention practices, policies, and our understanding of suicide to advance in a coherent and evidence-based manner. A scoping review protocol following Arksey and O'Malley's six-step modified framework has been developed to address this synthesis gap. It aims to systematically map the empirical literature that has investigated online suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours talk. It is anticipated that review outcomes could inform the training of health practitioners and peer/professional online moderators in how to best talk with people experiencing suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours. Outcomes could also form an evidence-base for developing policies and practices that focus on online places as safe spaces to talk about suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours. Developers of safe language guidelines could also use the outcomes to audit how well current guidelines reflect empirical evidence. Outcomes could enable researchers to design future online suicidal thoughts and/behaviours talk studies that extend our understandings of suicide leading to potential refinements of contemporary suicide theories/models.

Online suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours talk: A scoping review protocol

The anonymity that the internet and social media affords users means that suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours can be talked about with a sense of freedom and disinhibition that is often not possible in face-to-face contexts. Better understanding online suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour talk is critical as more people turn to online spaces for support. Without this the potentiality of such spaces as sites for suicide prevention and intervention is likely to remain unrealised. Currently there are no scoping or systematic review syntheses focusing on internet and/or on social media suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour talk. This lack of synthesis is problematic as it makes it more difficult for online suicide prevention and intervention practices, policies, and our understanding of suicide to advance in a coherent and evidence-based manner. A scoping review protocol following Arksey and O'Malley's six-step modified framework has been developed to address this synthesis gap. It aims to systematically map the empirical literature that has investigated online suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours talk. It is anticipated that review outcomes could inform the training of health practitioners and peer/professional online moderators in how to best talk with people experiencing suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours. Outcomes could also form an evidence-base for developing policies and practices that focus on online places as safe spaces to talk about suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours. Developers of safe language guidelines could also use the outcomes to audit how well current guidelines reflect empirical evidence. Outcomes could enable researchers to design future online suicidal thoughts and/behaviours talk studies that extend our understandings of suicide leading to potential refinements of contemporary suicide theories/models.

Good clinical and radiological results following remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic literature review was to report the results and complications of recent remnant preservation techniques in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using the terms "posterior cruciate ligament" or "PCL" and "remnant preserving." The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee's (IKDC) subjective and objective scores, Tegner scores, Orthopädische Arbeitsgruppe Knie (OAK) rate of return to sports, and rate of complications. Data were also extracted from studies that used stress radiographs to perform a quantitative assessment of the preoperative and postoperative anteroposterior stability.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 13 studies. The patient cohort of consisted of 643 participants (544 [84.6%] men and 99 [15.4%] women) with a mean age of 32.9 ± 4.0 years. The mean postoperative follow-up was 34.5 ± 10.9 months (range: 24-96 months), while the mean time from injury to surgery was 14.4 ± 9.9 months (range: 0-240 months). All studies reported clinically significant improvement at final follow-up, as evident from the measured subjective and objective IKDC scores, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and OAK rate. Only three studies reported return to sports activity, with a mean percentage of 90.8% (99/109). All studies showed a significant improvement in posterior translation, from 11.5 ± 1.2 mm to 3.3 ± 1.1 mm, using radiography (side-to-side difference). This systematic review revealed 13 (2.0%) failures and 33 (5.1%) minor complications: 10 (1.6%) cases of stiffness, 21 (4.9%) screws removal, 1 (0.2%) injury of the peroneal nerve, and 1 (0.2%) fibular fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

With the currently available data, all studies included in the review on posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation demonstrated satisfactory outcomes at mid-term follow-up (> 24 months), despite varying surgical techniques and graft types, and intervals from injury to surgery. For clinical relevance, standard PCL reconstruction is a highly effective operation in terms of improvement in functional status, knee stability, quality of life, and cost effectiveness. The remnant preservation technique requires more comprehensive diagnostic assessments of the PCL remnant patterns and more complicated surgical procedures. Given the absence so far of high quality studies with long-term follow-up, the remnant-preserving techniques should be recommended only by experienced knee arthroscopic surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

STUDY REGISTRATION

reviewregistry1376- www.researchregistry.com .

Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action

Peer review aims to select articles for publication and to improve articles before publication. We believe that this process can be infused by kindness without losing rigor. In 2014, the founding editorial team of the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD) made an explicit commitment to treat authors as we would wish to be treated ourselves. This broader group of authors reaffirms this principle, for which we suggest the terminology “supportive review.”

Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors

Purpose

Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone.

Methods

Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended “reject,” we coded for alignment between reviewers’ comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics.

Results

49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers’ impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending “reject,” the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%).

Conclusion

Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.