Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

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

Rachel Bruce 1, 2, 3 Anthony Chauvin 2, 4, 1 Ludovic Trinquart 5, 2, 1 Philippe Ravaud 2, 3, 5, 1 Isabelle Boutron 2, 5, 1, *
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.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [55 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-01332189
Contributor : Anthony Chauvin <>
Submitted on : Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - 1:49:07 PM
Last modification on : Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - 11:18:10 AM

File

BMC Medicine 2.pdf
Publication funded by an institution

Identifiers

Collections

Citation

Rachel Bruce, Anthony Chauvin, Ludovic Trinquart, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, BioMed Central, 2016, 14 (1), pp.85. ⟨10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5⟩. ⟨inserm-01332189⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

615

Files downloads

995