ArticleBMJ open2025
Perspectives of librarians and information specialists on conducting methodological peer reviews of systematic reviews: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the perspectives of librarians and information specialists (LIS) on their experience and impact as peer reviewers of systematic reviews (SRs), and on facilitators and barriers to LIS methodological peer review.
designSurvey and focus groups.
settingWe surveyed LIS who completed a peer review of an SR in a randomised controlled trial conducted in
participants88 LIS were eligible for participation. From the survey respondents, 27 LIS who had volunteered were randomly selected and invited to participate in a follow-up focus group.
resultsOf the 88 LIS invited to participate in the survey, 70 (80%) responded. Most respondents had six or more years of experience as an LIS (67/70; 96%) and advising researchers on doing SRs (55/70; 79%) and had peer reviewed for a journal prior to the study (57/70; 81%). Most focused on the search and SR methods when reviewing but also commented on aspects such as research question formulation, plagiarism, study results and conclusions. Two-thirds (44/66; 67%) believed they impacted editors' decision-making and 59% (39/66) believed they impacted the authors' revisions. Only three factors were considered extremely or very likely to impact their decision to review again: their schedule and/or lack of time, review turnaround time and their sense of professional duty. 17 LIS (63.0%) participated in a focus group. Time was the primary barrier identified in the focus groups, followed by a sense of intimidation. LIS reported being motivated by feeling valued by editors, the enjoyment of peer reviewing, the desire to improve SR quality and peer review as a learning experience. Several expressed surprise and delight at being asked to peer review for the journals.
conclusionsLIS may be an underused peer reviewing resource with methodological experience that can help editors make decisions and improve the quality of SRs. Efforts to engage LIS as peer reviewers by journal editors are likely to be well-received when LIS expertise is clearly valued, sought and heeded. We encourage both journal editors and LIS to creatively advance efforts to promote LIS as methodological peer reviewers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTY4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.