生物医学研究建议的科学同行评审的盲模型:系统综述。

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Seba Qussini, Ross S MacDonald, Saad Shahbal, Kris Dierickx
{"title":"生物医学研究建议的科学同行评审的盲模型:系统综述。","authors":"Seba Qussini, Ross S MacDonald, Saad Shahbal, Kris Dierickx","doi":"10.1177/15562646231191424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. <b>Methods:</b> Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. <b>Results:</b> Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"18 4","pages":"250-262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Seba Qussini, Ross S MacDonald, Saad Shahbal, Kris Dierickx\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646231191424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. <b>Methods:</b> Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. <b>Results:</b> Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"18 4\",\"pages\":\"250-262\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231191424\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231191424","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述的目的是估计:(i)盲法模型对偏倚的总体影响;(ii)每个致盲模型的效果;以及(iii)非盲法对生物医学研究提案中评审员问责制的影响。方法:对前瞻性或回顾性比较研究进行系统综述,这些研究评估了生物医学研究提案/资金申请的两个或多个同行评审盲法模型,并报告了与同行评审效率相关的结果。结果:三项符合纳入标准的研究被纳入本综述,并由两位作者使用QualSyst工具进行评估。结论:我们的系统综述是第一次在资助背景下评估同行评审盲法模型。虽然只纳入了三项研究,但这突出表明迫切需要进一步的随机对照试验来产生有效的证据。我们还讨论了同行评审的多个方面,例如手稿与提案的同行评审以及其他领域的同行评审。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信