4.6 Review

A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251440

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine [KSN2021210, KSN20212102]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This scoping review assessed existing peer review guidelines for biomedical journals, identifying a total of 1,811 checklist items. Items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be highly discussed in reviewer guidelines. The variation in review guidelines across journals and publishers calls for further research to determine the need for uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review.
Background Peer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript's significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched. Results Of 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines. Conclusion This review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review. Protocol registration The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available