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

Area of Science:

• Scholarly communication
• Scientific publishing
• Biomedical research integrity

Background:

• The manuscript peer-review process faces criticism for being 'unscientific' due to social and subjective dimensions.
• Communication among authors, editors, and peer reviewers significantly impacts the perception and quality of scientific publishing.
• Clearer definition and communication of stakeholder roles are needed to improve the manuscript review process.

Purpose of the Study:

• To present a methodological design for a qualitative study.
• To explore communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals.
• To gain insights from the perspective of journal editors.

Main Methods:

• Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews with biomedical journal editors.
• Purposive maximum variation sampling to ensure a heterogeneous participant sample.
• Thematic analysis of interview data, supported by NVivo V.11 software.

Main Results:

• Data collection conducted between October 2017 and February 2018.
• Ethical approval obtained from the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee.
• Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Conclusions:

• This methodological design provides a framework for investigating editor communication in peer review.
• Understanding these communication dynamics is crucial for enhancing the objectivity and rigor of scientific publishing.
• The study aims to inform interventions that mitigate social influences on peer review.