Peer Review

Content published in the JBI Evidence-based Practice Database is subject to multiple rounds of peer review. The first is an internal peer review as per our policy whereby each item of content is reviewed by a second member of JBI staff who is an academic lead for a Field, who has experience and expertise in the methods for ES and RP development, and who provides feedback on compliance with a) standardisation of structure and layout, b) clarity and appropriateness of content for a clinical audience and c) use of required reporting standards for levels of evidence, grades of recommendation and references. The internal peer review also addresses basic editorial requirements such as grammar. The second round of peer review is external to the staff of JBI Implementation Science, members of the relevant Field Expert Reference Group are invited to provide structured feedback which is then actioned before the content is considered suitable for publication.

Evidence Summaries:

For Evidence Summaries, all studies and papers selected to be included in the Evidence Summary are required to have a formal, documented assessment of methodological quality using the relevant critical appraisal checklist as a guide for this process. Critical appraisal is a formal requirement for any literature to be included in a JBI evidence summary; and each article that meets the PICO driven inclusion criteria must be appraised and given an overall score of either, low, medium or high. A decision rubric is then applied by the writer; the aim is to include the most recent, highest level of good quality evidence that relates to answering the clinical question. Therefore, only articles that score medium or high will be included – with the exception that some topics completely lack high or medium quality research. In these exceptional cases, low quality evidence will be included, the quality of the evidence made clear for readers, and future updates will aim to focus on identifying improved quality research for the topic. JBI holds that low quality evidence that has been published in a peer reviewed source has been open to greater critique and public scrutiny than routine practice (in the absence of clinical review) and therefore may provide useful context which would otherwise not be accessible.  The critical appraisal checklists for clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, quantitative evidence, qualitative evidence and expert opinion are found in the Technical Development Report template, which can be downloaded from Resources, Forms and Templates. The TDR for each topic will cumulatively report the appraisal results for each study reported in an evidence summary. As older papers, or those with findings that are superseded by higher quality studies are removed, the TDR will be updated with the newer appraisal reports, a new version of the TDR will be released and the original version will be archived but accessible by request.

Best Practice Information Sheets:

A multi-phased peer review approach is undertaken:

Phase 1 After the content for the BPIS has been developed it is peer reviewed by the JBI Program Co-ordinator to ensure alignment with the source systematic review and BPIS content and guidance. The critique focuses on reliable representation of the findings of the systematic review, accurate documentation of the recommendations, and consistency with the source systematic review in how levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are reported.

Phase 2 The drafted BPIS content is sent to at least one independent appropriately qualified specialist in the field of the BPIS topic, requesting their peer review and feedback. The specialist provides input on the accessibility of the practice recommendations, currency and relevance of the topic, and feedback on acceptability to diverse practicing professionals and clinical contexts.

Phase 3 The BPIS content undergoes a final stage of review by a member of the editorial team to evaluate the quality of the work ensuring the content aligns with publications standards. Once finalised, a graphic designer* is involved in developing the infographic and formatting the content into BPIS templates in preparation for publication. Final approval for publication lies with the Editor-in-Chief of the JBI EBP Database and the Program Co-ordinator
*Development of the infographic is an iterative process between the Authors, Speciality Field Leads, and the Graphic Designer.