A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 9, 2017, Pages

  Chauvin, Anthony ^a,b,c   Moher, David ^d,e   Altman, Doug ^f   Schriger, David L ^g   Alam, Sabina ^h   Hopewell, Sally ^f   Shanahan, Daniel R ⁱ   Recchioni, Alessandro ⁱ   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,b   Boutron, Isabelle ^a,b,j  

^a PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^d OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h F1000 Research   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

^j HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

more..

Author keywords

peer reviewers; randomized controlled trials; reporting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMED CENTRAL; CAREER; CHECKLIST; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE CENTER; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; PARALLEL DESIGN; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTRATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

CHECKLIST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDICAL WRITING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLICATIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 85041473941     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994; 272: 96-7.
2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007: MR000016.
3. Rennie R. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003: 1-13.
4. Public Library of Science. "Peer review-optimizing practices for online scholarly communication, " in Peer Review in Scientific Publications, Eighth Report of Session 2010-2012, Vol. I: Report, Together with Formal, Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, eds House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, editor. London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2011: p21-p22.
5. Public Library of Science. "Peer review-optimizing practices for online scholarly communication, " in Peer Review in Scientific Publications, Eighth Report of Session 2010-2012, Vol. I: Report, Together with Formal, Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, eds House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, editor. London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2011: p174-p178.
6. Association of American Publishers. Digital licenses replace print prices as accurate reflection of real journal costs, 2012. http://publishers. org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/summer-fall- 2012. pdf. (Accessed 08 june 2016).
7. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials 2012; 13: 77.
8. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010; 303: 2058-64.
9. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014; 349: g4145.
10. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science 2013; 342: 60-5.
11. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect and does training improve their ability to detect them?. J R Soc Med 2008; 101: 507-14.
12. Walbot V. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? J Biol 2009; 8: 24.
13. Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, et al. Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 77: 44-51.
14. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med 2014; 12: 179.
15. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2016; 14: 85.
16. Galipeau J, Moher D, Campbell C, et al. A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 257-65.
17. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med 2015; 13: 158.
18. COMPare-trials. org. Tracking switched outcomes in clinical trials. http://compare-trials. org/. (accessed 2 May 2016).
19. Munafò M. Metascience: reproducibility blues. Nature 2017; 543: 619-20.
20. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-65.
21. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869.
22. Mathieu S, Chan AW, Ravaud P. Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS One 2013; 8: e59910.
23. Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, et al. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consortbased WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2015; 13: 221.
24. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 781-8.
25. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 200-7.
26. Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Porcher R, et al. Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials. BMJ 2015; 350: h809.
27. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med 2014; 11: e1001666.
28. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2016; 13: e1002028.