A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 257-265

  Galipeau, James ^a   Moher, David ^a,b   Campbell, Craig ^c   Hendry, Paul ^b   Cameron, D William ^a,b   Palepu, Anita ^d   Hébert, Paul C ^e  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF CANADA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Author; Editor; Journalology; Manuscript; Peer review; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA EXTRACTION; EDITOR; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PSYCINFO; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY; WRITING; EDUCATION; LITERATURE; RESEARCH; SELECTION BIAS; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDUCATION; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SELECTION BIAS; WRITING;

EID: 84923572377     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. I. Chalmers, and P. Glasziou Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence Obstet Gynecol 114 6 2009 1341
2. P. Glasziou, E. Meats, C. Heneghan, and S. Shepperd What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 336 2008 1472
3. R. Kumar The science hoax: poor journalology reflects poor training in peer review BMJ 347 2013 f7465
4. P.C. Hebert Even an editor needs an editor: reflections after five years at CMAJ CMAJ 183 17 2011 1951
5. D.J. Benos, E. Bashari, J.M. Chaves, A. Gaggar, N. Kapoor, and M. LaFrance The ups and downs of peer review Adv Physiol Educ 31 2 2007 145 152
6. T. Jefferson, M. Rudin, S. Brodney Folse, and F. Davidoff Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 MR000016
7. A.J. Cowley, A. Skene, K. Stainer, and J.R. Hampton The effect of lorcainide on arrhythmias and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction: an example of publication bias Int J Cardiol 40 1993 161 166
8. J.A.C. Sterne, M. Egger, and D. Moher Addressing reporting biases J.P. Higgins, S. Green, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series 2008 John Wiley & Sons Chichester, UK 297 333
9. Dealing with biased reporting of the available evidence. The James Lind library. Available at http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/essays/interpretation/relevant-evidence/dealing-with-biased-reporting-of-the-available-evidence.html. Accessed May 17, 2013.
10. K. Dickersin, and I. Chalmers Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO JRSM 12 2011 532 538
11. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, and P. Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 151 2009 264 269 W64
12. J. Galipeau, D. Moher, B. Skidmore, C. Campbell, P. Hendry, and D.W. Cameron Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol) Systematic reviews 2 2013 41
13. M. Sampson, J. McGowan, E. Cogo, J. Grimshaw, D. Moher, and C. Lefebvre An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 944 952
14. T. Reuters Reference Manager 2008 Thomson Reuters New York, NY
15. S. Khangura, K. Konnyu, R. Cushman, J. Grimshaw, and D. Moher Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach Syst Rev 1 1 2012 1 9
16. J.P.T. Higgins, and D.G. Altman Assessing risk of bias in included studies J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.2 2008 John Wiley & Sons Chichester, UK 187 242
17. L. Shamseer, A. Stevens, B. Skidmore, L. Turner, D.G. Altman, and A. Hirst Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol Syst Rev 1 2012 24
18. A. Phadtare, A. Bahmani, A. Shah, and R. Pietrobon Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction BMC Med Educ 9 1 2009 27
19. M.M. Lawrence, and M.A. Folcik Writing for publication J Nurs Staff Dev 12 6 1996 289 293
20. C.P. West, A.J. Halvorsen, and F.S. McDonald Scholarship during residency training: a controlled comparison study Am J Med 124 2011 983 987
21. B.K. Sanderson, M. Carter, and J.B. Schuessler Writing for publication: faculty development initiative using social learning theory Nurse Educ 37 5 2012 206 210
22. M. Oakley, and A.R. Vieira The endangered clinical teacher-scholar: a promising update from one dental school J Dent Educ 76 4 2012 454 460
23. P.S. Sommers, J.H. Muller, P.J. Bailiff, and G.G. Stephens Writing for publication: a workshop to prepare faculty as medical writers Fam Med 28 9 1996 650 654
24. F.P. Hekelman, V. Gilchrist, S.J. Zyzanski, P. Glover, and K. Olness An educational intervention to increase faculty publication productivity Fam Med 27 4 1996 255 259
25. S.S. Sonnad, J. Goldsack, and K.L. McGowan A writing group for female assistant professors J Natl Med Assoc 103 9-10 2011 811 815
26. J.A. Files, J.E. Blair, A.P. Mayer, and M.G. Ko Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty J Womens Health 17 6 2008 1009 1015
27. Y. Steinert, P.J. McLeod, S. Liben, and L. Snell Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group Med Teach 30 8 2008 e280 e285
28. C.M. Rickard, M.R. McGrail, R. Jones, P. O'Meara, A. Robinson, and M. Burley Supporting academic publication: evaluation of a writing course combined with writers' support group Nurse Educ Today 29 5 2009 516 521
29. D. Jackson Mentored residential writing retreats: a leadership strategy to develop skills and generate outcomes in writing for publication Nurse Educ Today 29 1 2009 9 15
30. D. Houry, S. Green, and M. Callaham Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial BMC Med Educ 12 1 2012 83
31. S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, J. Carpenter, F. Godlee, and R. Smith Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial BMJ 328 2004 673
32. M.L. Callaham, R.L. Wears, and J.F. Waeckerle Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance Ann Emerg Med 32 3 1998 318 322
33. M.L. Callaham, and D.L. Schriger Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers Ann Emerg Med 40 3 2002 323 328
34. W.H. Guilford Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing Adv Physiol Educ 25 3 2001 167 175
35. S. van Rooyen, N. Black, and F. Godlee Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts J Clin Epidemiol 52 1999 625 629
36. S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, F. Godlee, L. Osorio, and R. Smith What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 101 10 2008 507 514
37. R. Murray, and M. Newton Facilitating writing for publication Physiotherapy 94 2008 29 34
38. L. Pololi, S. Knight, and K. Dunn Facilitating scholarly writing in academic medicine J Gen Intern Med 19 2004 64 68
39. D. Rennie Editorial peer review: its development and rationale F. Godlee, T. Jefferson, Peer Review in Health Sciences 2003 BMJ London, UK 1 13
40. A. Tavare Managing research misconduct: is anyone getting it right? BMJ 34 2011 d8212
41. E. Wager Coping with scientific misconduct BMJ 343 2011 d6586
42. J. Brice, and J. Bligh Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility Med Educ 39 1 2005 83 89
43. A. Marusic Author misconduct: editors as educators of research integrity Med Educ 39 1 2005 7 8
44. A. Keen Writing for publication: pressures, barriers and support strategies Nurse Educ Today 27 5 2007 382 388
45. J. Driscoll, and A. Driscoll Writing an article for publication: an open invitation J Orthopaedic Nurs 6 2002 144 152
46. J.W. Albarran, and J. Scholes How to get published: seven easy steps Nurs Crit Care 10 2 2005 72 77
47. M.L. Callaham, and J. Tercier The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality PLoS Med 4 1 2007 e40
48. M.L. Callaham The natural history of peer reviewers: the decay of quality Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication 2009 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication Vancouver, Canada
49. J. Bohannon Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342 2013 60 65
50. N. Hawkes Spoof research paper is accepted by 157 journals BMJ 347 2013 f5975
51. M.C. Freda, M.H. Kearney, J.G. Baggs, M.E. Broome, and M. Dougherty Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers J Prof Nurs 25 2 2009 101 108
52. W.G. Baxt, J.F. Waeckerle, J.A. Berlin, and M.L. Callaham Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance Ann Emerg Med 32 3 1998 310 317
53. S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith, and N. Black Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial JAMA 280 1998 234 237
54. G.B. Emerson, W.J. Warme, F.M. Wolf, J.D. Heckman, R.A. Brand, and S.S. Leopold Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial Arch Intern Med 170 2010 1934 1939
55. Lu Y: Learning to be confident and capable journal reviewers: an Australian perspective. Cambridgeshire, UK: Learned Publishing; 2012;25(1):56-61.
56. Available at http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/editors/. Accessed May 17, 2013.
57. V.S. Wong, and M.L. Callaham Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure J Clin Epidemiol 65 2012 247 252
58. J. Garrow, M. Butterfield, J. Marshall, and A. Williamson The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals JAMA 280 1998 286 287
59. E. Wager, S. Fiack, C. Graf, A. Robinson, and I. Rowlands Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey J Med Ethics 35 2009 348 353
60. P.C. Hébert Even an editor needs an editorr: eflections after five years at CMAJ CMAJ 183 2011 1951
61. Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v28n4p141-142.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2013.
62. Available at http://www.aafp.org/afp/2006/0715/p211.html. Accessed May 17, 2013.
63. Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v27n6p202.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2013.
64. Available at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/journal.aspx. Accessed May 17, 2013.
65. Available at http://student.bmj.com/student/static-pages.html?pageId=8. Accessed May 17, 2013.
66. Souder L: The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learned Publishing 2010; 24(1): 55-74.
67. Repository of Ongoing Training Opportunities in Journalology. Available at http://www.wame.org/about/repository-of-ongoing-training-opportunities. Accessed May 17, 2013.
68. A. Marušić, D. Sambunjak, A. Jerončić, M. Malički, and M. Marušić No health research without education for research-experience from an integrated course in undergraduate medical curriculum Med Teach 35 7 2013 609
69. Available at http://www.mefst.hr/default.aspx?id=928. Accessed May 17, 2013.
70. F. Song, S. Parekh, L. Hooper, Y.K. Loke, J. Ryder, and A.J. Sutton Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases Health Technol Assess 14 2010 iii 1-193
71. N. McGauran, B. Wieseler, J. Kreis, Y.B. Schüler, H. Kölsch, and T. Kaiser Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review Trials 2010 11 37 Available at http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-11-37.pdf Accessed May 17, 2013
72. N. Das, and M. Panjabi Plagiarism: why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res 2 2 2011 67
73. G. Yassine, C. Hajjem, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr, and T. Brody Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research PLoS One 5 10 2010 e13636