ArticleBMJ open2017
A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clothing design solutions for children with developmental disabilities: A scoping review protocol.MethodsX · 2024Article
- Capacity Building in Peer-review: A Student-Led Journal Report.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- Evidence on access to healthcare information by women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries: Scoping review.PloS one · 2021Article
- The limitations to our understanding of peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Review
- Mapping evidence on access to healthcare information by women of reproductive age in low-and-middle-income countries: scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.BMC medicine · 2019Article
- Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: theMolecular and cellular biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers.
methodsWe will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research.
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.