Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: Retrospective before and after study

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 349, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Hopewell, Sally ^a,b   Collins, Gary S ^a   Boutron, Isabelle ^b   Yu, Ly Mee ^a   Cook, Jonathan ^a   Shanyinde, Milensu ^a   Wharton, Rose ^a   Shamseer, Larissa ^c   Altman, Douglas G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH REPORT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84903592182     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g4145     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirement for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. 2008. www.icmje.org.
2. Hames I. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice. Blackwell, 2007.
3. Rennie D. Suspended judgment. Editorial peer review: let us put it on trial. Control Clin Trials 1992;13:443-5. (Pubitemid 23001792)
4. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999;318:4-5. (Pubitemid 29188889)
5. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney FS, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:MR000016.
6. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012;1:60.
7. BMC Series Journals: peer review process. 2014. www.biomedcentral.com/ authors/bmcseries.
8. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.
9. Dickersin K, Ssemanda E, Mansell C, Rennie D. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:44.
10. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010;303:2058-64.
11. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, You JJ, Akl EA, Mejza F, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 2012;344:e1553.
12. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 2010;340:c723.
13. Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, Rademaker A, Ratner D, Tregre B, et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:563-7.
14. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998;280:243-5. (Pubitemid 28493895)
15. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008;101:507-14.
16. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673.
17. Arnau C, Cobo E, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva A, Urrutia A. [Effect of statistical review on manuscript quality in Medicina Clinica (Barcelona): a randomized study]. Med Clin (Barc) 2003;121:690-4.
18. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2007;2:e332.
19. Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 2011;343:d6783.
20. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 2010;5:e10072.
21. Black N, van RS, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-3. (Pubitemid 28493891)