Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 7 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 14.3%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 4 · 57.1%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Peer reviewer detection of errors Number of major errors identified, assessed by 2 researchers independently, from 0 to 9, higher number indicates better detection. · peer reviewers

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Inter‐reviewer agreement (final score) Assessed using the average deviation between reviewers, from −4 to 0, higher scores indicate higher agreement. · peer reviewers

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Very low

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Inter‐reviewer agreement (change score) Assessed using the average score difference between reviewers, possible changes scores range from −9 to 9, higher scores indicate increased agreement. · peer reviewers

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Completeness of reporting Proportion of items adequately reported, from 0.00 to 1.00, higher number indicates more complete reporting. · peer reviewers

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Moderate

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Stakeholders' assessment of review quality (final score) Assessed by 2 editors independently using the RQI from 1 to 5 (average of the 2 ratings), higher scores indicate higher quality. · peer reviewers

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Stakeholders' assessment of review quality (change score) Assessed using either:A) a 5‐point scale, change scores range from −4 to 4 (3 studies);B) a 5‐point scale, expressed by "slope of quality score change"(1 study); orC) the MQAI, from −144 to... · peer reviewers

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training

Bibliometric scores · peer reviewers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found