TY - JOUR
KW - bias
KW - Humans
KW - peer review
KW - Peer Review, Research
KW - peer review
KW - Peer review training resources
KW - Publishing
KW - scholarly communication
KW - scholarly communication
KW - Scientific publishing
KW - Training
AU - Jessie V. Willis
AU - Kelly D. Cobey
AU - Janina Ramos
AU - Ryan Chow
AU - Jeremy Y. Ng
AU - Mohsen Alayche
AU - David Moher
AB - OBJECTIVES: To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based.
RESULTS: Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based.
CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.
BT - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DA - 2023-09
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.023
LA - eng
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based.
RESULTS: Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based.
CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.
PY - 2023
SP - 65
EP - 73
T2 - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
TI - Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers
VL - 161
SN - 1878-5921
ER -