Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study
22
Zitationen
2
Autoren
2018
Jahr
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being 'unscientific'. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders-namely authors, editors and peer reviewers-communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors' point of view. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
1915 · 14.203 Zit.
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis
2015 · 4.509 Zit.
The unpublished manuscript
2018 · 3.244 Zit.
Proceedings of the Academy of natural sciences of Philadelphia
1876 · 3.112 Zit.
<i>PRISMA2020</i> : An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis
2022 · 3.008 Zit.