Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance. Datasets

<p>Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers, because they can enhance methodologies in evidence synthesis. We sought to determine if and how librarians&rsquo; comments differed from subject peer-reviewers&rsquo;; whether there were differences in the implementation of their recommendations; how this impacted editorial decision-making, and the perceived utility of librarian peer review by librarians and authors. &nbsp;We used a mixed method approach, conducting a qualitative analysis of reviewer reports, author replies and editors&rsquo; decisions of submissions to the International Journal of Health Governance. Our content analysis categorized 16 thematic areas so methodological and subject peer-reviewers&rsquo; comments, decisions and rejection rates could be compared. Categories were based on the standard areas covered in peer-review (e.g., title, originality, etc.) as well as additional in-depth categories relating to the methodology (e.g., search strategy, reporting guidelines, etc.). We developed and used criteria to judge reviewers&rsquo; perspectives and code their comments. Methodological peer-reviewers assessed 13 evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted between September 2020 and March 2023. 55 reviewer reports were collected: 25 from methodological peer-reviewers, 30 from subject peer-reviewers.</p>