-
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Jul 2016To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other...
OBJECTIVE
To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
An SR, Web-based survey of experts, and consensus development forum were undertaken to identify checklists that evaluated or validated electronic literature search strategies and to determine which of their elements related to search quality or errors.
RESULTS
Systematic review: No new search elements were identified for addition to the existing (2008-2010) PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, and there was no evidence refuting any of its elements. Results suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improve the selection of search terms. Web-based survey of experts: Most respondents felt that peer review should be undertaken after the MEDLINE search had been prepared but before it had been translated to other databases. Consensus development forum: Of the seven original PRESS elements, six were retained: translation of the research question; Boolean and proximity operators; subject headings; text word search; spelling, syntax and line numbers; and limits and filters. The seventh (skilled translation of the search strategy to additional databases) was removed, as there was consensus that this should be left to the discretion of searchers. An updated PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement was developed, which includes the following four documents: PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, PRESS 2015 Recommendations for Librarian Practice, PRESS 2015 Implementation Strategies, and PRESS 2015 Guideline Assessment Form.
CONCLUSION
The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; MEDLINE; Peer Review; Review Literature as Topic; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27005575
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 -
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging Jan 2022
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 34991878
DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2021.12.001 -
Memorias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2023
Topics: Peer Review; Publishing
PubMed: 37377250
DOI: 10.1590/0074-02760230001 -
Journal of the American Heart... Aug 2021
Topics: Peer Review; Publishing
PubMed: 34278832
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.121.021475 -
PLoS Biology Dec 2022As 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...
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.
Topics: Peer Review, Research; Biological Science Disciplines
PubMed: 36525462
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001957 -
Biophysical Journal Aug 2016
Topics: Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 27508451
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.06.035 -
ELife Jan 2019As he prepares to step down as the Editor-in-Chief of eLife, reflects on the origins of the journal, the eLife approach to peer review, and current challenges in...
As he prepares to step down as the Editor-in-Chief of eLife, reflects on the origins of the journal, the eLife approach to peer review, and current challenges in scientific publishing.
Topics: Editorial Policies; Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 30672736
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.44799 -
ELife Oct 2022eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.
Topics: Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 36263932
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.83889 -
Proceedings of the National Academy of... Mar 2023
Topics: Peer Review; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 36888652
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2302593120 -
Nature Communications Oct 2022Starting in 2016, we have offered authors the option to publish the comments received from the reviewers and their responses alongside the paper. As we believe that...
Starting in 2016, we have offered authors the option to publish the comments received from the reviewers and their responses alongside the paper. As we believe that transparency strengthens the quality of peer review, we are now moving to publish the exchanges between authors and reviewers for all research articles submitted from November 2022 onward and accepted for publication. Referees will still have the option to remain completely anonymous, to sign their reports, and/or to choose to be acknowledged by name as part of our reviewer recognition scheme.
Topics: Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 36261430
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33056-8