Defining Manuscript Peer Review: An International Delphi Consensus Study
- 1Ottawa Hospital Research Institutes
Abstract
ObjectivesTo conduct a Delphi process to inform an international, consensus definition of manuscript peer review.
DesignThree-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.
SettingInternational experts representing interest holders affected by manuscript peer review across the fields of biomedical, health, and social sciences, economics, and healthcare-related industries.
ParticipantsRound 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 measuresConsensus on the terminology, scope, characteristics, functions, processes, and reviewer characteristics that should inform a definition of manuscript peer review.
ResultsAcross 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.
ConclusionsThis 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.
Related
- International expert consensus on managing elective hernia repair in patients with Crohn’s disease using the Delphi method
- Defining the clinical benefits of disease-modifying therapy in people living with spinal muscular atrophy who require permanent ventilation: a UK-based modified Delphi consensus process
- Emergency undocking in robotic surgery: an international Delphi consensus study
- Defining use cases for biomarkers and tests across tuberculosis infection, disease and treatment: An international consensus and prioritisation exercise
- Intraoperative Assessment of Component Loosening in Hip Arthroplasty: An International Delphi Consensus
BibTeX
@misc{massod2026defining,
title = {{Defining Manuscript Peer Review: An International Delphi Consensus Study}},
author = {M. Massod and K. H. Tai and J. S. Rizzato and J. Tufte and M. Mittelman and C. V. Raesfeld and B. Aczel and J. McGowan and O. B. Amaral and H. Bauchner and K. Ben Messaoud and G. A. Currie and A. Flanagin and D. A. Forero and A. B. Kennedy and M. S. Kurdi and G. Lopez-Ortiz and G. Masukume and D. P. Misra and A. B. Rajendra Santosh and L. S. Berman and A. K. Thabit and S. Yaseen and A. Bodnaruc and I. Boutron and J. Clark and M. Offringa and L. Waltman and D. Moher},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.05.26364760},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.05.26364760v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Defining Manuscript Peer Review: An International Delphi Consensus Study
AU - M. Massod
AU - K. H. Tai
AU - J. S. Rizzato
AU - J. Tufte
AU - M. Mittelman
AU - C. V. Raesfeld
AU - B. Aczel
AU - J. McGowan
AU - O. B. Amaral
AU - H. Bauchner
AU - K. Ben Messaoud
AU - G. A. Currie
AU - A. Flanagin
AU - D. A. Forero
AU - A. B. Kennedy
AU - M. S. Kurdi
AU - G. Lopez-Ortiz
AU - G. Masukume
AU - D. P. Misra
AU - A. B. Rajendra Santosh
AU - L. S. Berman
AU - A. K. Thabit
AU - S. Yaseen
AU - A. Bodnaruc
AU - I. Boutron
AU - J. Clark
AU - M. Offringa
AU - L. Waltman
AU - D. Moher
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/05
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.10.05.26364760
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.05.26364760v1
AB - ObjectivesTo conduct a Delphi process to inform an international, consensus definition of manuscript peer review. DesignThree-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. SettingInternational experts representing interest holders affected by manuscript peer review across the fields of biomedical, health, and social sciences, economics, and healthcare-related industries. ParticipantsRound 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 measuresConsensus on the terminology, scope, characteristics, functions, processes, and reviewer characteristics that should inform a definition of manuscript peer review. ResultsAcross 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. ConclusionsThis 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.
ER -