Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To conduct a Delphi process to inform an international, consensus definition of manuscript peer review.
Design
Three-round Delphi consensus study including two surveys and one virtual consensus meeting. Peer review features identified through a prior scoping review were rated on a 5-point Likert scale in Rounds 1 and 2 and voted on using include, exclude, and abstain options in Round 3. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement.
Setting
International experts representing interest holders affected by manuscript peer review across the fields of biomedical, health, and social sciences, economics, and healthcare-related industries.
Participants
Round 1 participants were purposively recruited via email from corresponding authors of articles included in the preceding scoping review. Round 2 participants were those who completed Round 1. Round 3 participants were purposely selected to address gaps in representation from earlier rounds, with attention to diversity of perspectives and equity-relevant characteristics informed by PROGRESS-Plus (e.g., geographic location, gender, race/ethnicity, occupation, and socioeconomic context). Participants were required to communicate in English.
Main outcome measures
Consensus on the terminology, scope, characteristics, functions, processes, and reviewer characteristics that should inform a definition of manuscript peer review.
Results
Across the three rounds (N=143, 109, and 16 participants, respectively), 44 peer review features across six domains (Characteristics, Function, Motivation, Assessment, Process, and Challenges) and six peer reviewer characteristics met the consensus threshold for inclusion. Consensus was also reached on terminology to describe manuscript peer review and the peer review workflow. Results were synthesized into a final conceptualization of manuscript peer review, consisting of one definition and eight pillars.The consensus definition is: Manuscript peer review is a structured process by which human reviewers assess scholarly manuscripts, with the aim of improving the quality and trustworthiness of published research in line with norms of reciprocity to the research community. The eight pillars characterize manuscript peer review and are as follows: Principled, Constructive, Timely, Transparent, Professional, Quality, Confidential, and Pluralistic.
Conclusions
This three-round international Delphi established a consensus-based, normative conceptualization of manuscript peer review as a distinct, human-led process to improve the quality and trustworthiness of scholarly research. The resulting definition and eight pillars may provide a shared foundation for research, evaluation, education, and improvement across publishing contexts while allowing operational features to remain adaptable.