Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 27, 2025
Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and
Mario Gaudino1, N Bryce Robinson1, Antonino Di Franco1
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery Weill Cornell Medicine New York NY.
Abstract:
Background 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.
More Related Videos
05:47Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems
Published on: June 13, 2025
06:26Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
Published on: November 27, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
02:07Blind Procedures
01:22Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
00:46Feedback Inhibition
01:32The Scientific Method
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
01:18The Scientific Method in Nursing Process
When using research findings to change practice, one must understand the process used to guide a study. The scientific method is a systematic, step-by-step process that supports the data's validity, reliability, and generalizability. As a result, findings can be...