Evaluation reports for TEBT-2023-0011 - Svendsen et al.

Evaluation report for "Cross-mapping of terms used in chemical risk assessment with 1 those used in systematic review: research protocol" (Svendsen et al). This manuscript describes a protocol for cross-mapping core terms used by the systematic review and chemical risk assessment communities to improve inter-operability and communication. The proposed method originally consised of drafting a long list of terms using Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) method in the first phase, followed by three consecutive phases using consensus-based approaches to derive definitions of terms and identify overlaps. Editorial triage found that overall the objective, approach, and plan of analysis were clear and sound. The only suggestions to improve transparency was to add further detail on any text mining tool employed for the first phase and extend the consideration of lack of representation within recruited experts beyond specific institutions to also consider personal characteristics such as age, gender, race etc. The first round of peer review generated very valuable and detailed comments on the proposed methodology that highlight where detail on specific steps and/or justification for the selection of a specific approach is lacking, including grounding the protocol on a solid up-to-date understanding of methods for consensus building and controlled vocabulary development. Some more fundamental questions were raised about the symmetry of the translation effort and the reciprocity of the exchange between the two communities. The authors have clearly engaged with the peer review process and reflected on their proposed methods. The authors piloted the originally proposed Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) method on the document collections. As it did not perform as expected, a new and simpler manual approach has been suggested. As a result, the proposed methods have been amended and simplified. The authors have also provided detailed answers to comments and in most instances have amended the manuscript accordingly. During the second round of peer review, reviewers expressed their satisfaction with simplified methods. A few remaining issues have been addressed in responses to reviewers for which it would be desirable also to amend the text to improve transparency. The authors did as suggested and submitted the final version of the manuscript which was accepted. The following points of scientific interest were surfaced by the review process; first, piloting planned methods whenever feasible is worthwhile exercise that may lead to simpler, improved methods, secondly, the perspective of reviewers from other academic disciplines on similar issues was very useful and allowed authors to benefit from experience gained in those disciplines.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.