A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

Glonti, Ketevan; Cauchi, Daniel; Cobo, Erik; Boutron, Isabelle; Moher, David; Hren, Darko

doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0

Table 2 Task-related statements (‘tasks’ refer to specific actions that fulfil ‘roles’ that refer to the overarching nature of peer reviewers’ function. The statements are ranked by numerical frequency)

From: A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

Theme	Item^a	Tasks…	#^b
Organisation and approach to review	1	Identify strengths and weaknesses	31
	2	Identify flaws	29
	3	Provide summary of key points	29
	4	Differentiate between major and minor comments	17
	5	Follows reviewer guidelines provided by the journal	11
	6	Differentiate between fatal vs. addressable flaws	10
	7	Address all aspects of the manuscript	9
	8	Differentiate between general and specific comments	6
	9	Identify missing information	5
	10	Number each statement chronologically	5
Make general comments	11	Determine validity/quality/technical merit/rigour	69
	12	Assess originality	55
	13	Assess novelty	54
	14	Assess importance/significance	48
	15	Comment upon relevance to practice/science (clinical relevance)	45
	16	Comment upon contribution to the field	42
	17	Highlight whether current literature is covered	35
	18	Determine timeliness of the manuscript—is it topical?	16
	19	Determine whether reporting guidelines were followed (i.e. appropriate selection and adherence by authors)	5
	20	Comment upon conceptual/theoretical framework	4
Assess and address content for each section of the manuscript	Title
	21	Title is accurate	28
	Abstract
	22	Accurate/conclusions consistent with results	26
	23	Sufficiently detailed	23
	24	Adequacy of abstract (in general)	18
	25	Use of salient keywords	7
	Introduction
	26	Clarity of study purpose and hypothesis	50
	27	Adequacy of introduction (in general)	37
	28	Appropriateness and adequacy of the literature review	22
	29	Relevance of problem	19
	Methods
	30	Adequacy of methods (in general)	65
	31	Study design	56
	32	Data analysis (methods and tests)	42
	33	Use of statistics	42
	34	Sampling strategy	34
	35	Clarity and validity of statistical methods	33
	36	How data was collected/reproducibility of methods	33
	37	Methods appropriate for the research question	29
	38	Risk of bias	25
	39	Definition and measurement of variables	22
	40	Inclusion/exclusion criteria	15
	41	Follow-up	12
	42	Assess different analysis parts separately	11
	43	Reliable and appropriate tools used	11
	44	Power analysis	10
	Results
	45	Clarity of tables and figures	54
	46	Adequacy of results (general)	46
	47	Neutral and logical presentation of results	25
	48	No interpretation of results	12
	49	Accuracy of raw data/appendices	8
	Discussion/conclusion
	50	Interpretation supported by data	92
	51	Adequacy of discussion (general)	53
	52	Study limitations addressed	22
	53	Research and policy implications (suggestions for future studies)	17
	54	Summary reflects contents of the article	13
	55	Generalizability of study conclusions	5
	References
	56	Appropriateness and accuracy of references	52
Address ethical aspects	57	Consider general ethical aspects and report on any specific ethical concerns (including manipulation of data, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate treatment of animal or human subjects)	55
	58	Report on ethical approval	11
	59	Check specifically for plagiarism/fraud	4
	60	Highlight competing interests of authors	4
	61	No need to detect fraud	2
Assess manuscript presentation	62	Overall readability	41
	63	Presentation (general)	40
	64	Coherence/clarity and logical flow of the text	37
	65	Grammar and spelling	30
	66	Organisation of the manuscript	25
	67	Use of language	21
	68	Length of the manuscript	12
	69	Check adherence to authors’ guidelines (i.e. journal guidelines for authors)	9
Provide recommendations	70	Recommendations on publication (e.g. no/minor/major revisions, reject)	74
	71	Comment on interest to journal readership/relevance for journal scope	52
	72	Complete (numerical) rating/checklist	26
	73	Recommend another more suitable journal	2

^aCorresponds to the ‘Role item(s)’ columns in the tables related to tasks in the additional files
^bNumber of extracted tasks statements across all data sources in the scoping review

Back to article page

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcmedicineeditorial@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com

BMC Medicine

Contact us