A

Defining Manuscript Peer Review: An International Delphi Consensus Study

medRxiv

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To conduct a Delphi process to inform an international, consensus definition of manuscript peer review. Design Three-round Delphi consensus study including two surveys and one virtual consensus meeting. Peer review features identified through a prior scoping review were rated on a 5-point Likert scale in Rounds 1 and 2 and voted on using include, exclude, and abstain options in Round 3. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Setting International experts representing interest holders affected by manuscript peer review across the fields of biomedical, health, and social sciences, economics, and healthcare-related industries. Participants Round 1 participants were purposively recruited via email from corresponding authors of articles included in the preceding scoping review. Round 2 participants were those who completed Round 1. Round 3 participants were purposely selected to address gaps in representation from earlier rounds, with attention to diversity of perspectives and equity-relevant characteristics informed by PROGRESS-Plus (e.g., geographic location, gender, race/ethnicity, occupation, and socioeconomic context). Participants were required to communicate in English. Main outcome measures Consensus on the terminology, scope, characteristics, functions, processes, and reviewer characteristics that should inform a definition of manuscript peer review. Results Across the three rounds (N=143, 109, and 16 participants, respectively), 44 peer review features across six domains (Characteristics, Function, Motivation, Assessment, Process, and Challenges) and six peer reviewer characteristics met the consensus threshold for inclusion. Consensus was also reached on terminology to describe manuscript peer review and the peer review workflow. Results were synthesized into a final conceptualization of manuscript peer review, consisting of one definition and eight pillars.The consensus definition is: Manuscript peer review is a structured process by which human reviewers assess scholarly manuscripts, with the aim of improving the quality and trustworthiness of published research in line with norms of reciprocity to the research community. The eight pillars characterize manuscript peer review and are as follows: Principled, Constructive, Timely, Transparent, Professional, Quality, Confidential, and Pluralistic. Conclusions This three-round international Delphi established a consensus-based, normative conceptualization of manuscript peer review as a distinct, human-led process to improve the quality and trustworthiness of scholarly research. The resulting definition and eight pillars may provide a shared foundation for research, evaluation, education, and improvement across publishing contexts while allowing operational features to remain adaptable.

Authors 29

  1. Western University

    Affiliation as printed

    Western University;

  2. Zimmer Biomet (Netherlands) · Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

    Affiliation as printed

    Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Institute for Medical Information Processing Biometry and Epidemiology;

  3. Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)

    Affiliation as printed

    Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas;

  4. Affiliation as printed

    Hassanah Consulting;

  5. Affiliation as printed

    PCORI;

  6. Rights and Resources

    Affiliation as printed

    AI Rights Initiative;

  7. Eötvös Loránd University

    Affiliation as printed

    Eotvos Lorand University;

  8. University of Ottawa

    Affiliation as printed

    University of Ottawa;

  9. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

    Affiliation as printed

    Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro;

  10. Boston University

    Affiliation as printed

    Boston University;

  11. University of Geneva

    Affiliation as printed

    University of Geneva;

  12. UK Research and Innovation

    Affiliation as printed

    UK Research and Innovation;

  13. American Medical Association

    Affiliation as printed

    American Medical Association;

  14. Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina

    Affiliation as printed

    Fundacion Universitaria del Area Andina;

  15. University of South Carolina System

    Affiliation as printed

    University of South Carolina System;

  16. Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute

    Affiliation as printed

    Karnataka Medical College and Research Institute;

  17. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

    Affiliation as printed

    National Autonomous University of Mexico;

  18. Health Service Executive

    Affiliation as printed

    Health Service Executive;

  19. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences

    Affiliation as printed

    Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences;

  20. University of the West Indies · University of the West Indies · University of the West Indies · University of the West Indies

    Affiliation as printed

    The University of the West Indies;

  21. Universidad del Desarrollo

    Affiliation as printed

    Universidad del Desarrollo;

  22. King Abdulaziz University

    Affiliation as printed

    King Abdulaziz University;

  23. Rashid Latif Medical College

    Affiliation as printed

    Rashid Latif Khan University Medical and Dental College;

  24. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

    Affiliation as printed

    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute;

  25. Sorbonne Paris Cité

    Affiliation as printed

    Center of Research in Epidemilogy and Statistics Sorbone Paris;

  26. University of Toronto

    Affiliation as printed

    University of Toronto;

  27. Hospital for Sick Children

    Affiliation as printed

    Hospital for Sick Children;

  28. Ludo Waltman Aachen

    Leiden University

    Affiliation as printed

    Leiden University;

  29. David Moher corresponding

    Canadian Institutes of Health Research · Ottawa Hospital

    Affiliation as printed

    Ottawa Hospital Research Institutes

Cited by 0 stored of 0

References 0