What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 101, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 507-514

  Schroter, Sara ^a   Black, Nick ^b   Evans, Stephen ^b   Godlee, Fiona ^a   Osorio, Lyda ^b   Smith, Richard ^a  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EDITOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; TRAINING;

EID: 53649085249     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research. What can journals do? JAMA 2002;287:2765-7
2. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med 1982;1:59-71
3. Andersen B. Methodological errors in medical research. Oxford: Blackwell; 1990
4. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283-4
5. Smith R. Peer review: Reform or revolution? BMJ 1997;315:759-60
6. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of peer review: A systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2784-6
7. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. JAMA 1994;272:149-51
8. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:310-7
9. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:237-40
10. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Effects of training on the quality of peer review: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:657-8
11. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-9
12. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-8
13. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal. JAMA 1998;280:231-3
14. Scientific Advisory Committee for the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002;11:193-205
15. Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, Liu PY, Altman DG. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomised controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:750-6
16. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:11-21
17. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DGfor the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62