Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

BMC Medicine

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Patel, Jigisha ^a  

^a BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical training; CONSORT; EBM; Evidence based medicine; Medical education; Peer review; Randomized controlled trials; RCT; Reporting guidelines

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; EDUCATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATIENT CARE; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SPECIALIZATION; STANDARD; CONTINUING EDUCATION; HUMAN; PUBLISHING;

EDUCATION, CONTINUING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84907404190     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Evidence-based medicine working group: Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992, 268:2420-2425.
2. Bero L, Rennie D: The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995, 274:1935-1938.
3. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study group: Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994 344:1383-1389.
4. Pyorälä K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Thorgeirsson G: Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. A subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Diabetes Care 1997, 20:614-620.
5. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276:637-639.
6. The EQUATOR NETWORK [ http://www.equator-network.org/ ]
7. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:1250-1251.
8. AllTrials [ http://www.alltrials.net/ ]
9. Wager L, Godlee F, Jefferson T: What is peer review? In How to survive peer review, Chapter 2. UK: BMJ books; 2002. Chapter 2.
10. Weller AC: Introduction to the editorial review process. In Editorial Peer Review, Its Strengths and Weeknesss, Chapter 1. 2nd edition. USA: Information Today Inc; 2002, 15.
11. Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006, 99:178-82.
12. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998, 280:234-237.
13. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999, 318:23-27.
14. Smith R: Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999, 318:4.
15. Anthes E, Former NIH Director on Open Access: Harold Varmus: Public Library of Science. Available at: [ http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/harold_varmus_public_library_of_science/ ]
16. BioMed Central [ http://www.biomedcentral.com/ ]
17. PloS One [ http://www.plosone.org/ ]
18. Ware M, Mabe M: The STM report. An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing. UK: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2012: 23-24.
19. Is Peer Review Broken? [ http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/video-is-peer-review-broken/ ]
20. Robertson M: Re-review opt out and painless publishing. BMC Biology 2013, 11:18.
21. 21 F1000 Research [ http://f1000research.com/author-guidelines ]
22. Peerage of Science [ http://www.peerageofscience.org/ ]
23. Axious Review [ http://axiosreview.org/the-process/ ]
24. Rubriq [ http://www.rubriq.com/ ]
25. BioMed Central transfers [ http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/transferfaq ]
26. eLife [ http://elifesciences.org/about#process ]
27. Frontiers [ http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem ]
28. Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F: Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002, 287:2784-2786.
29. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18:MR000016.
30. Hirst A, Altman DG: Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PloS One, 7:e35621.
31. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E: Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. JASIS&T 2013, 64:132-161.
32. Mettes TD, Ghaeminia H, Nienhuijs ME, Perry J, van der Sanden WJ, Plasschaert A: Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 13:CD003879.
33. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Peer review in scientific publications. Eight Report of Session 2010-12 UK.
34. 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.
35. Houry D, Green S, Callaham ML: Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 2012, 12:83.
36. Callaham ML, Tercier J: The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e40.
37. 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? JR Soc Med 2008, 101:507-514.
38. Callaham M, McCulloch C: Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2011 57:141-148.
39. 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.
40. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, Wharton R, Shamseer L, Altman DG: Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014 349:g4145.
41. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010, 152:726-732.
42. Bsi Kitemark [ http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/our-services/product-certification/kitemark/ ]