Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Background Despite having a crucial role in scholarly publishing, peer reviewers do not typically require any training. The purpose of this study was to conduct an international survey on the current perceptions and motivations of researchers regarding peer review training. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted of biomedical researchers. A total of 2000 corresponding authors from 100 randomly selected medical journals were invited via email. Quantitative items were reported using frequencies and percentages or means and SE, as appropriate. A thematic content analysis was conducted for qualitative items in which two researchers independently assigned codes to the responses for each written-text question, and subsequently grouped the codes into themes. A descriptive definition of each category was then created and unique themes–as well as the number and frequency of codes within each theme–were reported. Results A total of 186 participants completed the survey of which 14 were excluded. The majority of participants indicated they were men (n = 97 of 170, 57.1%), independent researchers (n = 108 of 172, 62.8%), and primarily affiliated with an academic organization (n = 103 of 170, 62.8%). A total of 144 of 171 participants (84.2%) indicated they had never received formal training in peer review. Most participants (n = 128, 75.7%) agreed–of which 41 (32.0%) agreed strongly–that peer reviewers should receive formal training in peer review prior to acting as a peer reviewer. The most preferred training formats were online courses, online lectures, and online modules. Most respondents (n = 111 of 147, 75.5%) stated that difficulty finding and/or accessing training was a barrier to completing training in peer review. Conclusion Despite being desired, most biomedical researchers have not received formal training in peer review and indicated that training was difficult to access or not available.

Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study

“…Furthermore, with 632 participants responding to the survey and 22 participants taking part in the focus groups, this analysis had a modest response rate. However, this is not out of line with other online surveys that have used similar recruitment strategies [23,24]. Our response rate is likely to be an underestimation because some emails may be inactive or invalid due to changes in the author’s profession, retirement, or death.…”

“…Similar to an approach used in previously published studies [22][23][24], a convenience sample of 12 000 random authors who published articles no earlier than June 2022 within biomedical journals on MEDLINE was selected for researcher and clinician recruitment. To be eligible, participants needed to be an author/co-author of a biomedical article and be able to read and write in English.…”

An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers

“…In addition, it is important to note that peer review is not always effective because of inconsistency and bias, as many peer reviewers have not had standard training, and many training opportunities and courses are not openly accessible online, inhibiting researchers from completing training on peer review. [18][19][20][21][22] Thus, this blind belief in peer review may negatively impact researchers' opinions toward preprints.…”

An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Preprinting Attitudes Among Biomedical Researchers

“…MEDLINE is also currently indexing preprints, supporting research that has been posted to eligible preprint servers to be easily discovered and preserved 24 . In addition, it is important to note that peer review is not always effective due to inconsistency and bias, as many peer reviewers have not had standard training and many training opportunities and courses are not openly accessible online, inhibiting researchers from completing training on peer review 23,[25][26][27][28] . Thus, this blind belief in peer review may negatively impact researcher's opinions towards preprints.…”