03026nas a2200385   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043653002400058653002300082653001100105653002600116653002500142653002000167653004200187653001700229653002800246653001800274653001900292100001800311700002200329700002300351700001700374700001500391700002200406700002300428700001800451700002200469700002700491245012700518300001200645490000700657520196200664022001402626       2021                            d  c2021-08-0310aBiomedical Research10aeditorial policies10aHumans10aPeer Review, Research10aPeriodicals as Topic10aQuality Control10aRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic10aTime Factors10anetwork meta‐analysis10apeer‐review10areview quality1 aMario Gaudino1 aN. Bryce Robinson1 aAntonino Di Franco1 aIrbaz Hameed1 aAjita Naik1 aMichelle Demetres1 aLeonard N. Girardi1 aGiacomo Frati1 aStephen E. Fremes1 aGiuseppe Biondi-Zoccai00aEffects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis  ae0199030 v103 aBackground Quality of the peer-review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer-review process of biomedical manuscripts. Methods and Results All randomized trials comparing different peer-review interventions at author-, reviewer-, and/or editor-level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention-modified peer-review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer-review process. Five-hundred and seventy-five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author-level, 16 at reviewer-level, and 3 at editor-level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer-review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta-analysis, reviewer-level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author- and editor-level interventions did not significantly impact peer-review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [-0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [-0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [-0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [-0.40 to 0.79] for duration). Conclusions Modifications of the traditional peer-review process at reviewer-level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910.  a2047-9980