Research study designs: An appraisal for peer reviewers and science editors

European Science Editing

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 44-45

  Barroga, Edward F ^a   Kojima, Takako ^b  

^a TOKYO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b TOKYO WOMEN'S MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Editor; Peer reviewer; Research design

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880060939     PISSN: 02583127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Jekel JF, Katz DL, Elmore JG, Wild DMG. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Preventive Medicine (3rd Edition). Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2007:77-89.
2. Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2007:1:8. doi: 10.1177/2345678906290531.
3. Sandelowski M. Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health 2000;23:334-340.
4. Thompson B, Diamond KE, McWilliam R, Snyder P, Snyder SW. Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children 2005;71(2):181-194.
5. Fatemeh B. Psychological impact of training strategies based on constructive theory of social integration in improving student learning motivation tips first base. American Journal of Scientific Research 2011;24:80-89.
6. Handley MA, Schillinger D, Shiboski S. Quasi-experimental designs in practice-based research settings: design and implementation considerations. Journal of American Board of Family Medicine 2011;24(5):589-596.
7. Shuttleworth. Research designs. Available at http://www. experimentresources.com/research-designs.html (Accessed 9 October 2012).
8. Acharya AS, Prakash A, Nigam A, Saxena P. Scientific study designs for research: an overview. Indian Journal of Medical Specialties 2012;3(2):191-194.
9. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croatian Medical Journal 2012;53:386-389. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386.
10. Gasparyan AY. Familiarizing with science editors' associations. Croatian Medical Journal 2011;52:735-739. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.735.
11. Thadhani R, Tonelli M. Cohort studies: marching forward. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2006;1:1117-1123. doi:10.2215/CJN. 00080106.
12. Levin KA. Study design III: cross-sectional studies. Evidenced-Based Dentistry 2006;7:24-25. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375.
13. STROBE guidelines. Available at http://www.strobe-statement.org/index. php?id=available-checklists (Accessed 9 October 2012).
14. Ambroggio L, Smith MJ, Shah SS. Editorial commentary: Quasiexperimental and interrupted time-series design. Journal of Pediatric Infectious Disease 2012;1(3):187-189. doi: 10.1093/jpids/pis059
15. TREND guidelines. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/trendstatement/ (Accessed 9 October 2012).
16. Stolberg HO, Norman G, Trop I. Randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Roentgenology 2004;183:1539-1544.
17. CONSORT guidelines. Available at http://www.consort-statement.org/ consort-statement/ (Accessed 9 October 2012).
18. Greenland S, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL (eds.) Modern Epidemiology (3rd Edition). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2008:652-682.
19. PRISMA guidelines. Available at http://www.prisma-statement.org/ statement.htm (Accessed 9 0ctober2012).
20. Frankel R, Devers K. Study design in qualitative research-1: developing questions and assessing resource needs. Education for Health 2000;13(2):251-261.
21. COREQ guidelines. Available at http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/ 19/6/349.full (Accessed 9 October 2012).