ArticlePloS one2023
Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The CUAJ trainee peer-reviewer training program Pilot evaluation of a structured peer review curriculum for Canadian urology residents and fellows.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- 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
- Evaluating large language models for abstract evaluation tasks: an empirical study.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Tips and tricks for addressing and responding to peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2025Article
- A mixed-methods survey and focus group study to understand researcher and clinician preferences for a Journal transparency Tool.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Peer Review in Ophthalmology: A Collaborative Approach to Training the Next Generation of Reviewers.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Review
- A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionDespite being desired, most biomedical researchers have not received formal training in peer review and indicated that training was difficult to access or not available.
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.