Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Orthopedics/standards , Pandemics , Peer Review, Research/standards , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Humans , PublishingABSTRACT
As 2022 draws to a close, we look back at some of the recent changes that have taken place at PLOS Biology, highlight some of our editors' favorite moments from the past year across the life sciences, and thank our editors, authors and peer-reviewers.
Subject(s)
Biological Science Disciplines , Peer Review, ResearchABSTRACT
Importance: Although peer review is an important component of publication for new research, the viability of this process has been questioned, particularly with the added stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To characterize rates of peer reviewer acceptance of invitations to review manuscripts, reviewer turnaround times, and editor-assessed quality of reviews before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, open-access general medical journal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, pre-post cohort study examined all research manuscripts submitted to JAMA Network Open between January 1, 2019, and June 29, 2021, either directly or via transfer from other JAMA Network journals, for which at least 1 peer review of manuscript content was solicited. Measures were compared between the period before the World Health Organization declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020 (14.3 months), and the period during the pandemic (15.6 months) among all reviewed manuscripts and between pandemic-period manuscripts that did or did not address COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each reviewed manuscript, the number of invitations sent to reviewers, proportions of reviewers accepting invitations, time in days to return reviews, and editor-assessed quality ratings of reviews were determined. Results: In total, the journal sought review for 5013 manuscripts, including 4295 Original Investigations (85.7%) and 718 Research Letters (14.3%); 1860 manuscripts were submitted during the prepandemic period and 3153 during the pandemic period. Comparing the prepandemic with the pandemic period, the mean (SD) number of reviews rated as high quality (very good or excellent) per manuscript increased slightly from 1.3 (0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) (P < .001), and the mean (SD) time for reviewers to return reviews was modestly shorter (from 15.8 [7.6] days to 14.4 [7.0] days; P < .001), a difference that persisted in linear regression models accounting for manuscript type, study design, and whether the manuscript addressed COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the speed and editor-reported quality of peer reviews in an open-access general medical journal improved modestly during the initial year of the pandemic. Additional study will be necessary to understand how the pandemic has affected reviewer burden and fatigue.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Humans , Peer Review, Research , Pandemics , Cohort Studies , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiologySubject(s)
Pharmacies , Pharmacy , Female , Humans , Leadership , Peer Review, Research , PublishingSubject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Biomedical Research/standards , Coronavirus Infections , Information Dissemination/methods , Open Access Publishing/standards , Pandemics , Peer Review, Research/trends , Pneumonia, Viral , Research Report/standards , COVID-19 , Computer Simulation , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Open Access Publishing/supply & distribution , Patient Safety , Peer Review, Research/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Quality Control , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , WorkloadABSTRACT
The American Journal of Critical Care's Junior Peer Reviewer program aims to mentor novice reviewers in the peer review process. To grow their critical appraisal skills, the participants take part in discussion sessions in which they review articles published in other journals. Here we summarize the articles reviewed during the second year of the program, which again focused on the care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. This article aims to share these reviews and the reviewers' thoughts regarding the relevance, design, and applicability of the findings from the selected studies. High rates of delirium associated with COVID-19 may be impacted by optimizing sedation strategies and allowing safe family visitation. Current methodology in crisis standards of care may result in inequity and further research is needed. The use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate super low tidal volume ventilation does not improve 90-day mortality outcomes. Continued research to better understand the natural history of COVID-19 and interventions useful for improving outcomes is imperative.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Reading , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Peer Review, ResearchSubject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Open Access Publishing , Pandemics , Periodicals as Topic , Pneumonia, Viral , Research , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/economics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , International Cooperation , Mental Health , Pandemics/economics , Peer Review, Research , Physicians/organization & administration , Physicians/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Research/organization & administration , Research Personnel/organization & administration , Research Personnel/psychology , Research Report , SARS-CoV-2 , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.