Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals

PLoS ONE

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2012, Pages

  Hirst, Allison ^a   Altman, Douglas G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTENT ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ONLINE SYSTEM; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; ARTICLE; ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84860447131     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, et al. (2010) Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 8: 24.
2. Chalmers I, Glasziou P, (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374: 86-89.
3. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340: c332.
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097.
5. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, et al. (2006) Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185: 263-267.
6. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, Ostelo RW, Bossuyt PM, et al. (2006) The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 67: 792-797.
7. Prady SL, Richmond SJ, Morton VM, Macpherson H, (2008) A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS One 3: e1577.
8. Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, (2008) Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal "Instructions to Authors". Trials 9: 20.
9. Hames I, (2007) Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA; Oxford Blackwell Pub. xii, 293 p.
10. Altman DG, (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308: 283-284.
11. Smith R, (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99: 178-182.
12. Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, Graham ID, Moher D, et al. (2010) Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med 8: e1001069.
13. Schriger DL, Arora S, Altman DG, (2006) The content of medical journal Instructions for authors. Ann Emerg Med 48: 743-749, 749 e741-744.
14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357: 1191-1194.
15. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, et al. (2008) CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 371: 281-283.
16. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, (2008) Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 148: W60-66.
17. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900.
18. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, et al. (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med 138: 40-44.
19. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, et al. (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4: e296.
20. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008-2012.
21. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, (2004) Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 94: 361-366.
22. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S, (2008) Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care 17 (Suppl 1): i3-9.
23. Clark J, (2003) How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books. xv: 367.
24. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J, (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19: 349-357.
25. Malterud K, (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 358: 483-488.
26. Lang TA, (2009) How to write, publish, & present in the health sciences: a guide for clinicians & laboratory researchers. Philadelphia American College of Physicians. xx, 369 p.
27. Cummings P, Rivara FP, (2002) Reviewing manuscripts for Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 156: 11-13.
28. DeMaria AN, (2003) What constitutes a great review? Journal of the American College of Cardiology 42: 1314-1315.
29. Frank E, (1996) Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. Prevent Med 25: 102-104.
30. Garmel GM, (2010) Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals. The Permanente Journal 14: 32-40.
31. Winck JC, Fonseca JA, Azevedo LF, Wedzicha JA, (2011) To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol 17: 96-103.
32. Wynne KE, Simpson BJ, Berman L, Rangel SJ, Grosfeld JL, et al. (2011) Results of a longitudinal study of rigorous manuscript submission guidelines designed to improve the quality of clinical research reporting in a peer-reviewed surgical journal. J Pediatr Surg 46: 131-137.
33. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, et al. (2007) Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2: e332.
34. Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, et al. (2011) Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 343: d6783.
35. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, (1994) Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 121: 11-21.
36. da Costa BR, Cevallos M, Altman DG, Rutjes AW, Egger M, (2011) Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study. BMJ Open 1: e000048.
37. Groves T, (2008) Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. BMJ 337: a718.
38. Ware M, (2011) Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions New Review of Information Networking 16: 23-53.
39. Tite L, Schroter S, (2007) Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 9-12.
40. Callaham ML, Tercier J, (2007) The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 4: e40.
41. Callaham M, McCulloch C, (2011) Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 57: 141-148.
42. Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M, (2009) Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs 25: 101-108.
43. Kac G, Hirst A, (2011) Enhanced quality and transparency of health research reporting can lead to improvements in public health policy decision-making: help from the EQUATOR Network. Cad Saude Publica 27: 1872.
44. Pandis N, Fedorowicz Z, (2011) The international EQUATOR network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research. J Appl Oral Sci 19: 0-0.
45. Betz CL, (2011) Adoption of CONSORT statements for randomized control trials published in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing. J Pediatr Nurs 26: 177-178.
46. Morris C, (2008) The EQUATOR Network: promoting the transparent and accurate reporting of research. Dev Med Child Neurol 50: 723.
47. Roberts J, (2010) Improving Reporting Standards in Biomedical Journals. 7 Part I. Editorial Office News (EON) official newsletter of the International Society for Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) 3 pp. 1-4.
48. Roberts J, (2010) Improving Reporting Standards in Biomedical Journals. 9 Part II. Editorial Office News (EON) official newsletter of the International Society for Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) 3 pp. 3-13.
49. Erb HN, (2010) Changing expectations Do journals drive methodological changes? Should they? Prevent Vet Med 97: 165-174.