Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to revi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Melissa L. Rethlefsen, Sara Schroter, Lex M. Bouter, David Moher, Ana Patricia Ayala, Jamie J. Kirkham, Maurice P. Zeegers
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Peer review Librarians and information specialists Systematic reviews Literature searching Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/62ba011c539e40d087c2325eb5776bbd
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:62ba011c539e40d087c2325eb5776bbd
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:62ba011c539e40d087c2325eb5776bbd2021-11-14T12:31:16ZImproving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z1745-6215https://doaj.org/article/62ba011c539e40d087c2325eb5776bbd2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05738-zhttps://doaj.org/toc/1745-6215Abstract Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers. Methods This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment. Discussion The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers. Trial registration Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2 .Melissa L. RethlefsenSara SchroterLex M. BouterDavid MoherAna Patricia AyalaJamie J. KirkhamMaurice P. ZeegersBMCarticlePeer reviewLibrarians and information specialistsSystematic reviewsLiterature searchingMedicine (General)R5-920ENTrials, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Peer review Librarians and information specialists Systematic reviews Literature searching Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	Peer review Librarians and information specialists Systematic reviews Literature searching Medicine (General) R5-920 Melissa L. Rethlefsen Sara Schroter Lex M. Bouter David Moher Ana Patricia Ayala Jamie J. Kirkham Maurice P. Zeegers Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
description	Abstract Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers. Methods This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment. Discussion The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers. Trial registration Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2 .
format	article
author	Melissa L. Rethlefsen Sara Schroter Lex M. Bouter David Moher Ana Patricia Ayala Jamie J. Kirkham Maurice P. Zeegers
author_facet	Melissa L. Rethlefsen Sara Schroter Lex M. Bouter David Moher Ana Patricia Ayala Jamie J. Kirkham Maurice P. Zeegers
author_sort	Melissa L. Rethlefsen
title	Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short	Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full	Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr	Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed	Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort	improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/62ba011c539e40d087c2325eb5776bbd
work_keys_str_mv	AT melissalrethlefsen improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT saraschroter improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT lexmbouter improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT davidmoher improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT anapatriciaayala improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jamiejkirkham improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mauricepzeegers improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
_version_	1718429170624626688

Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Ejemplares similares