Peer review guidelines for Population Health Intervention Research: An adapted Delphi approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada (PHIRIC) is a multi-stakeholder initiative aimed to advance the quality, quantity, and use of population health intervention research (PHIR). PHIRIC developed guidelines for the peer review of PHIR-related grants to ensure appropriate and comprehensive review of PHIR proposals according to criteria that reflect the complexity and diversity of theories, methods and contexts involved. Methods A three-round adapted Delphi process was conducted through an online questionnaire. Each round required panel members to independently review the guidelines and respond to an online survey. The survey asked participants to rate the importance, specificity to PHIR and clarity of each criterion using a 6-point Likert-type scale. Open-ended survey questions allowed panelists to provide explanations for ratings or suggestions for improvement to the guidelines. Overarching questions related to the preamble, ordering, and appropriateness of criteria were also included. In the final round, a ranking question was added to have panel members rank order each criterion in order of importance. Following analyses, a summary of responses was provided to the panel after each round. Panel members were asked to reconsider and revise earlier ratings in light of the feedback of other panel members during previous rounds. Results Purposive sampling was used to recruit an International panel of researchers and research funders (n = 46/50 completed ≥ one round of the Delphi; 37/50 participated in final round). The initial list of criteria was reduced from 37 at Round 1 to 14 at Round 3 based on the evidence-based changes made between rounds. The final criteria were each highly rated for importance and specificity to PHIR. Discussion/Conclusions Guidelines were designed primarily to serve the needs of research funding agencies interested in supporting PHIR (ie, peer review criteria and support for design of Requests for Applications) and, by extension, to support applicants in the preparation of PHIR applications. Guidelines may also serve to build capacity amongst trainees in PHIR and link to core competencies. Guidelines may be also hold relevance for improving reporting and peer review of PHIR in journals Key messages Guidelines are one strategy to ensuring the appropriate and comprehensive review of PHIR. Guidelines have relevance to the European context for researchers and research funding agencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.486 | 0.561 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".