, OrCID iDs Ketevan Glonti

D. Moher,

K. Glonti, D. Cauchi, and E. Cobo, A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals, BMJ Open, vol.7, p.17468, 2017.

D. Moher, J. Galipeau, and S. Alam, Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement, BMC Med, vol.15, p.167, 2017.

K. Glonti, D. Cauchi, and E. Cobo, A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals, BMC Med, vol.17, p.118, 2019.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-02292376

A. Chauvin, P. Ravaud, and G. Baron, The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by Journal editors, BMC Med, vol.13, p.1, 2015.

A. Y. Gasparyan and G. D. Kitas, Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals, Croat Med J, vol.53, pp.386-395, 2012.

W. L. Lipworth, I. H. Kerridge, and S. M. Carter, Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing, Soc Sci Med, vol.72, pp.1056-63, 2011.

A. Tong, P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig, Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups, Int J Qual Health Care, vol.19, pp.349-57, 2007.

K. Glonti and D. Hren, Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study, BMJ Open, vol.8, p.20568, 2018.

M. Patton, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, pp.209-339, 2002.

P. Miror, An innovative and ambitious joint doctoral training programme

D. Rennie, A. Flanagin, and F. Godlee, The eighth international Congress on peer review and biomedical publication: a call for research, JAMA, vol.313, pp.2031-2033, 2015.

M. Sandelowski, Sample size in qualitative research, Res Nurs Health, vol.18, pp.179-83, 1995.

V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual Res Psychol, vol.3, pp.77-101, 2006.

G. Guest, A. Bunce, and L. Johnson, How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability, Field Methods, vol.18, pp.59-82, 2006.

L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, and D. E. White, Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the Trustworthiness criteria, Int J Qual Methods, vol.16, 2017.

Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic inquiry, pp.438-447, 1985.

K. Dickersin, E. Ssemanda, and C. Mansell, What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol.7, p.44, 2007.

P. M. Rothwell and C. N. Martyn, Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone, Brain, vol.123, pp.1964-1973, 2000.

C. J. Lee, C. R. Sugimoto, and G. Zhang, Bias in peer review, J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, vol.64, pp.2-17, 2013.

R. L. Kravitz, P. Franks, and M. D. Feldman, Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical Journal: are they reliable and do editors care?, PLoS One, vol.5, p.10072, 2010.

A. Hirst and D. G. Altman, Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals, PLoS One, vol.7, p.35621, 2012.

M. L. Callaham and J. Tercier, The relationship of previous training and experience of Journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality, PLoS Med, vol.4, p.40, 2007.

M. A. Kliewer, K. S. Freed, and D. M. Delong, Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of roentgenology, American Journal of Roentgenology, vol.184, pp.1731-1736, 2005.

, on October 13, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright, 2019.

A. T. Evans, R. A. Mcnutt, and S. W. Fletcher, The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews, J Gen Intern Med, vol.8, pp.422-430, 1993.

T. P. Stossel, Reviewer status and review quality, N Engl J Med, vol.312, pp.658-667, 1985.

N. Black, S. Rooyen, and F. Godlee, What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical, Journal, vol.280, 1998.

C. Superchi, J. A. González, and I. Solà, Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol.19, p.48, 2019.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-02309545

J. Rodríguez-carrio, P. Putrik, and A. Sepriano, Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET peer review mentoring program, RMD Open, vol.4, p.619, 2018.

R. Bruce, A. Chauvin, and L. Trinquart, Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMC Med, vol.14, p.85, 2016.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-01332189

C. J. Lee and D. Moher, Promote scientific integrity via Journal peer review data, Science, vol.357, pp.256-263, 2017.

N. Casnici, F. Grimaldo, and N. Gilbert, Attitudes of Referees in a multidisciplinary Journal: an empirical analysis, J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, vol.68, pp.1763-71, 2017.

M. A. Zaharie and C. L. Osoian, Peer review motivation frames: a qualitative approach, Eur Manage J, vol.34, pp.69-79, 2016.

L. Tite and S. Schroter, Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey, J Epidemiol Community Health, vol.61, pp.9-12, 2007.

M. Willis, Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses, Learned Publishing, vol.29, pp.5-7, 2016.

. University and . Glasgow, Academic promotion criteria research scientist grades 7-9

P. Academic, R. Comments, and . Policy, Peer review is not just quality control, it is part of the social infrastructure of research. impact of social sciences, 2019.

D. Moher, F. Naudet, and I. A. Cristea, Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure, PLoS Biol, vol.16, p.2004089, 2018.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01771422