Cochrane · systematic review · MR000056
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review
Hesselberg, J-O, Dalsbø, TK, Stromme, H, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
MethodologyAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 4 · 57.1%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training versus standard journal practice or no training
Population: peer reviewers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Completeness of reporting Proportion of items adequately reported, from 0.00 to 1.00, higher number indicates more complete reporting. Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Peer reviewer detection of errors Number of major errors identified, assessed by 2 researchers independently, from 0 to 9, higher number indicates better detection. Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
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. Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
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... Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Inter‐reviewer agreement (final score) Assessed using the average deviation between reviewers, from −4 to 0, higher scores indicate higher agreement. Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
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. Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Bibliometric scores Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |