BackgroundDeveloping a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.MethodsThis survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.ResultsThere were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was “not enough time” (60%, n = 12) followed by “lack of expertise” (50%, n = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had “rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the “search methodology” (57%, n = 36), “search write-up” (46%, n = 29), or “entire article” (54%, n = 34). Those who selected “other” (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods.ConclusionsDespite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.

中文翻译：

---

图书馆员作为系统评价的方法学同行评审员：在线调查的结果

背景开发全面、可重复的文献检索是高质量系统评价 (SR) 的基础。图书馆员和信息专业人员作为专家检索者，可以提高系统评价检索、方法和报告的质量。同样，期刊编辑和作者经常寻求通过同行评审来提高已发表的 SR 和其他证据综合的质量。健康科学图书馆员对系统评价的产生做出了贡献，但对他们参与同行评审 SR 手稿的情况知之甚少。方法本调查旨在评估图书馆员被要求对系统评价手稿进行同行评审的频率，并确定与受邀评审者相关的特征。该调查通过三个健康科学信息专业列表服务器分发给一个有目的的样本。结果有 291 份完整的调查回复。结果表明，期刊编辑要求 22% (n = 63) 的受访者对系统评价或荟萃分析手稿进行同行评审。在 78% (n = 228) 尚未被询问的受访者中，54% (n = 122) 会进行同行评审，41% (n = 93) 可能会进行同行评审。只有 4% (n = 9) 不会审稿。受访者对 38 种独特期刊的稿件进行了同行评审，并认为他们被问到是因为他们的专业知识。在拒绝同行评审的受访者（32%，n = 20）中，最常见的解释是“时间不够”（60%，n = 12），其次是“缺乏专业知识”（50%，n = 10） . 绝大多数受访者（95%，n = 40) 曾“拒绝或建议修改手稿| 经过同行评审。他们的决定基于“搜索方法”（57%，n = 36）、“搜索文章”（46%，n = 29）或“整篇文章”（54%，n = 34）。选择“其他”的人（37%，n = 23）列出了各种拒绝的原因，包括 PRISMA 流程图中的问题或错误；纳入、排除和正在进行的研究表；数据提取；报告；结 然而，许多人愿意提供这项服务。编辑应该让经验丰富的图书馆员参与同行评审，我们建议考虑一些策略。