The Library
Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process : surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals
Tools
Tools
Tools
Schroter, Sara, Price, Amy, Flemyng, Ella, Demaine, Andrew, Elliot, Jim, Harmston, Rebecca R., Richards, Tessa, Staniszewska, Sophie and Stephens, Richard (2018) Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process : surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals. BMJ Open, 8 (9). e023357. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357
|
PDF
WRAP-perspectives-involvement-peer-review-patient-journals-Staniszewska-2018.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (767Kb) | Preview |
|
![[img]](http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_zip.png) |
Archive (ZIP)
WRAP-accepted version-2018.zip - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only Download (764Kb) |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357
Abstract
Objective
In 2014/2015, The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers.
Design
A cross-sectional survey.
Setting and participants
Patient and public reviewers for The BMJ and RIE who have been invited to review.
Results
The response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings.
Conclusions
Patient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) | ||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Warwick Research in Nursing |
||||||
| SWORD Depositor: | Library Publications Router | ||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Peer review, Patient participation, Scholarly publishing, Public health -- Research, Scholarly periodicals, Medicine -- Research | ||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | BMJ Open | ||||||
| Publisher: | BMJ Publishing Group | ||||||
| ISSN: | 2044-6055 | ||||||
| Official Date: | 3 September 2018 | ||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||
| Volume: | 8 | ||||||
| Number: | 9 | ||||||
| Article Number: | e023357 | ||||||
| DOI: | 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357 | ||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
