Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study
نویسندگان
چکیده
OBJECTIVE To investigate the effectiveness of open peer review as a mechanism to improve the reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical journals. DESIGN Retrospective before and after study. SETTING BioMed Central series medical journals. SAMPLE 93 primary reports of randomised trials published in BMC-series medical journals in 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Changes to the reporting of methodological aspects of randomised trials in manuscripts after peer review, based on the CONSORT checklist, corresponding peer reviewer reports, the type of changes requested, and the extent to which authors adhered to these requests. RESULTS Of the 93 trial reports, 38% (n=35) did not describe the method of random sequence generation, 54% (n=50) concealment of allocation sequence, 50% (n=46) whether the study was blinded, 34% (n=32) the sample size calculation, 35% (n=33) specification of primary and secondary outcomes, 55% (n=51) results for the primary outcome, and 90% (n=84) details of the trial protocol. The number of changes between manuscript versions was relatively small; most involved adding new information or altering existing information. Most changes requested by peer reviewers had a positive impact on the reporting of the final manuscript--for example, adding or clarifying randomisation and blinding (n=27), sample size (n=15), primary and secondary outcomes (n=16), results for primary or secondary outcomes (n=14), and toning down conclusions to reflect the results (n=27). Some changes requested by peer reviewers, however, had a negative impact, such as adding additional unplanned analyses (n=15). CONCLUSION Peer reviewers fail to detect important deficiencies in reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials. The number of these changes requested by peer reviewers was relatively small. Although most had a positive impact, some were inappropriate and could have a negative impact on reporting in the final publication.
منابع مشابه
The Viewpoints of Alborz University of Medical Sciences’ Faculty Members on Open Peer Review of Journal Articles
Background and Aim: The open peer review process, which is one of the peer-reviewed methods in journals, has been accepted in scientific forums. The aim of this study was to investigate the points of view of university faculty members about the open peer review process of journal articles. Materials and Methods: The study used a descriptive survey. The sample size was calculated using the Coch...
متن کاملنقش فرآیند داوری بر بهبود کیفیّت نگارش مقالات منتشرشده در مجله علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بیرجند
Background and Aim: Due to the increase number of articles publishing in scientific journals, as well as the importance of their quality in the production and transmission of knowledge in medical sciences, the current study aimed at assessing the quality of the published papers in the Journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences before and after of their peer review. Materials and Methods:...
متن کاملPeer Reviewers’ Comments on Research Articles Submitted by Iranian Researchers
The invisible hands of peer reviewers play a determining role in the eventual fate of submissions to international English-medium journals. This study builds on the assumption that non-native researchers and prospective academic authors may find the whole strive for publication, and more specifically, the tough review process, less threatening if they are aware of journal reviewers’ expectation...
متن کاملTeaching through Near-Peer Method in Medical Education: A Systematic Review
Introduction: Peer education is implemented in various curricula. However, there are conflicting reports of its effects. The aim of this study was to review the literature and assess the outcomes of near-peer education for students of medical sciences. Methods: In this systematic review, an online search was carried out to identify articles published from 1995-2015 on assessing the outcomes o...
متن کاملA protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials
INTRODUCTION Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and swit...
متن کامل