Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study

Ketevan Glonti · Darko Hren

21 citations0/0 files storedBMJ Open

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Using thematic analysis in psychology 1985Naturalistic inquiry 2007Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups 1980Qualitative research and evaluation methods 2017Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design : Choosing Among Five Approaches 2017Thematic Analysis 2016Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration

Cited by

2019Key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study protocol 2020Key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study 2022Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos 2020Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.