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...

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 repo...

INTRODUCTION As survey researchers, as well as reviewers, readers, and end users of the survey research literature, we are all too often disheartened by the poor quality of survey research reports published in the peer-reviewed literature. For the most part, poor quality can be attributed to 2 primary problems: (1) ineffective reporting of sufficiently rigorous survey research, or (2) poorly de...

PURPOSE Scientific journals rely on peer review to maintain the high quality and standards of papers accepted for publication. The purpose of this study was to explore the strengths and weaknesses of medical education reports by analyzing the ratings and written comments given by external reviewers. METHOD The author conducted a content analysis of reviewers' comments on 151 research manuscri...

Copyright © 2017 by Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports | pISSN 2250-0685 | eISSN | Available on 2321-3817 www.jocr.co.in | doi:10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.660 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commerci...

Both now and in my prior role as Associate Editor, I have evaluated many manuscripts and peer reviews. Many of our peer reviewers complete reviews for a variety of gastroenterology journals, and we appreciate their service to our new journal. However, peer review of a case report submission is notably different than the scientific evaluation of other data-driven manuscripts, such as clinical tr...