Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process

Vercellini, Paolo; Buggio, Laura; Viganò, Paola; Somigliana, Edgardo

doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On a positive side, COVID-19-related papers received more comments (than non-related), suggesting that these preprints are (at least) publicly discussed. Just as observed by others (Yeo-Teh and Tang, 2020), the present results indicate that published COVID-19 articles, at the present state, have a higher retraction rate than non-COVID-19 articles. However, our data should be viewed with additional caution – reporting retractions, corrections, and expression of concern as fractions with numbers obtained from PubMed is not optimal and is only an approximation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Both bioRxiv and medRxiv explicitly declare that preprints “should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information”. However, peer-review is also prone to bias and the evidence of its effectiveness is scarce (Carneiro et al, 2020; Jefferson et al, 2002; Smith, 2006; Vercellini et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues

Kodvanj

Homolak

Virag

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCOVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favoured for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints and (iii) relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues.MethodsManuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and October 21 were assessed for the probability of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and those published were evaluated for submission-to-acceptance time. The extent of public discussion was assessed based on Altmetric and Disqus data. The Retraction Watch database and PubMed were used to explore the retraction of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles and preprints.ResultsWith adjustment for the preprinting server and number of deposited versions, COVID-19-related preprints were more likely to be published within 120 days since the deposition of the first version (OR=2.41, 95%CI 2.17-2.69) as well as over the entire observed period (OR=1.77, 95%CI 1.65-1.91). Submission-to-acceptance was by 38.57 days (95%CI 34.76-42.39) shorter for COVID-19 articles. Public discussion of preprints was modest and COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020.ConclusionCurrent data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues

Kodvanj

Homolak

Virag

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above findings may also indicate that the key idea of quality control still works, although there is a lot of criticism of PR (see Fig. ) and many alternative suggestions to replace it (Jubb, ; Nicholas et al, ; Vercellini, Buggio, Viganò, & Somigliana, ; Wellcome Trust, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Peer review in the development of academic articles: Experiences of Finnish authors in the educational sciences

Atjonen

2018

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined author experiences of the developmental feedback regarding peer review of journal articles. It focused on quite experienced authors in the educational sector of all eight universities in Finland. Data were gathered using an electronic questionnaire, which was completed by 121 respondents. The majority of authors perceived reviewer feedback as developmental and appreciated critical but constructive review. Over 60% of respondents found reviewers usually keen to improve the article and to provide pertinent critique. Less than 8% reported frequent experience of reviewers who were not experts or provided unjustified accusations. A third reported reviewer feedback that was frequently biased or based on different paradigms. The most published authors were the most satisfied with the developmental feedback, but postdoctoral researchers had received more developmental complementary feedback than any other groups. The results indicate that the peer review system remains useful for ensuring article quality, but some attention is still required to ensure developmental feedback that will help the authors enhance their manuscripts.

show abstract

“…In recent years, several journals have tried to improve peer review processes [55]. Their efforts have been focused on introducing openness and transparency to the models of peer review [56]. New strategies in peer review might help to address persistent statistical reporting and data presentation issues in the medical literature [55].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Points for High-Quality Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation

Nieminen

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Data analysis methods have become an essential part of empirical research papers, especially in health sciences and medical research. It has previously been reported that a noteworthy percentage of articles have flaws in their statistical reporting. Reporting problems have been a long-term issue, and despite continued efforts to improve the situation, improvements have been far from satisfactory. One explanation is an inadequate assessment of statistical reporting during peer review. This communication proposes a short instrument to assess the quality of data analysis reporting in manuscripts and published papers. Method: A checklist-type instrument was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the quality of statistical reporting in medical journals and from published guidelines for reporting and data presentation. Items were pretested and modified during pilot studies. A total of 160 original medical research articles that were published in 4 journals were evaluated to test the instrument. Interrater and intrarater agreements were examined by comparing quality scores assigned to 40 articles published in a psychiatric journal. Results: The data analysis reporting test consists of nine questions that assess the quality of health research from a reader’s perspective. The composed scale has a total score ranging from 0 to 10 and discriminated between journals and study designs. A high score suggested that an article had a good presentation of findings in tables and figures and that the description of analysis methods was helpful to readers. Interrater and intrarater agreements were high. Conclusion: An applicable checklist for quickly testing the statistical reporting quality of manuscripts and published research papers was developed. This instrument aims to improve the quality of empirical research in scientific fields where statistical methods play an important role.

show abstract

Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process

Cited by 27 publications

References 53 publications

Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues

Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues

Peer review in the development of academic articles: Experiences of Finnish authors in the educational sciences

Ten Points for High-Quality Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About