Development and application of a comprehensive glossary for the identification of statistical and methodological concepts in peer review reports

被引:0
|
作者
Buljan, Ivan [1 ,2 ]
Garcia-Costa, Daniel [3 ]
Grimaldo, Francisco [3 ]
Klein, Richard A. [4 ]
Bakker, Marjan [4 ]
Marusic, Ana
机构
[1] Univ Split, Ctr Evidence Based Med, Sch Med, Dept Res Biomed & Hlth, Split, Croatia
[2] Univ Split, Fac Humanities & Social Sci, Dept Psychol, Split, Croatia
[3] Univ Valencia, Dept Comp Sci, Burjassot, Spain
[4] Tilburg Univ, Dept Methodol & Stat, Tilburg, Netherlands
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Peer review; Dictionary -based approach; Statistical glossary; Discipline differences; Peere database; Research quality assessment; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.joi.2024.101555
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
The assessment of problems identified by peer researchers during peer review is difficult because the content of these reports is typically confidential. The current study sought to construct and apply a glossary for the identification of methodological and statistical concepts mentioned in peer review reports. Three assessors created a list of 1,036 different terms in 19 categories. The glossary was tested on the confidential PEERE database, a sample of 496,928 peer review reports from various scientific disciplines. The most frequently mentioned terms were related to data presentation (found in 40.3 % of the reports) and parametric descriptive statistics (33.3 %). Review reports suggesting a rejection were more likely to mention methodological issues, whereas statistical issues were raised more frequently in review reports recommending revisions. Across disciplines, methodological issues were more frequently mentioned in social sciences (64.1 %), while health and medical sciences were more predictive for the identification of statistical issues (40.1 %). Female reviewers identified more statistical issues compared to male reviewers. These results indicate that the glossary could be used as an additional tool for the assessment of the content of peer review reports and for understanding what help authors may need in writing research articles.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 5 条
  • [1] Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
    Cecilia Superchi
    José Antonio González
    Ivan Solà
    Erik Cobo
    Darko Hren
    Isabelle Boutron
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19
  • [2] Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
    Superchi, Cecilia
    Antonio Gonzalez, Jose
    Sola, Ivan
    Cobo, Erik
    Hren, Darko
    Boutron, Isabelle
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [3] Development of a Comprehensive, Contour-Based, Peer Review Workflow at a Community Proton Center
    Cooper, Benjamin T.
    Goenka, Anuj
    Sine, Kevin
    Lee, Jae Y.
    Chon, Brian H.
    Tsai, Henry K.
    Hug, Eugen B.
    Fontanilla, Hiral P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PARTICLE THERAPY, 2020, 7 (01) : 34 - 40
  • [4] Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)
    Lunny, Carole
    Veroniki, Areti-angeliki
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Dias, Sofia
    Hutton, Brian
    Wright, James M.
    White, Ian R.
    Whiting, Penny
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2024, 13 (01)
  • [5] Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)
    Carole Lunny
    Areti-angeliki Veroniki
    Julian P. T. Higgins
    Sofia Dias
    Brian Hutton
    James M. Wright
    Ian R. White
    Penny Whiting
    Andrea C. Tricco
    Systematic Reviews, 13