SynthesisBMC medicine2016
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Pooled it
- Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Effectiveness of the researcher-led "Peerspectives" peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Article
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Gender and geographical bias in the editorial decision-making process of biomedical journals: a case-control study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Do Manuscripts by Female Evolutionary Biologists Spend Longer Under Review?Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Valuing contributions to peer review: A shared responsibility.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- The importance of peer review skills: Value and necessity of training residents to ensure continued scientific excellence.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Creating diverse and inclusive scientific practices for research datasets and dissemination.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionDespite 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.