Development of ARCADIA: A tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2020, Pages

  Superchi, Cecilia ^a,b   Hren, Darko ^c   Blanco, David ^a,b   Rius, Roser ^b   Recchioni, Alessandro ^d   Boutron, Isabelle ^a,e   González, José Antonio ^b  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^d SPRINGER   (New Zealand)

^e ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

Author keywords

epidemiology; protocols guidelines; public health; statistics research methods

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CHECKLIST; DATA ANALYSIS; EDITOR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; DOCUMENTATION; FEMALE; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION;

ADULT; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DOCUMENTATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85086355898     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med 2014;12:179.
2. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals 2006;99:5.
3. Rennie D. Let's make peer review scientific. Nature 2016;535:31-3.
4. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane methodology review group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007.
5. 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.
6. Superchi C, González JA, Solà I, et al. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: A methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:48.
7. SurveyMonkey Inc. SurveyMonkey. in San Mateo, California, USA. Available: www. surveymonkey. com
8. Putton M. Purposeful sampling. In: Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, 1980: 169-86.
9. Sharp MK, Tokalic R, Gómez G, et al. A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal Journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;107:42-50.
10. EASE Blog. Biomedical editors survey on peer review [Internet], 2018. Available: https://ese-bookshelf. blogspot. com/2018/11/biomedical-editors-survey-on-peer-review. html
11. MiRoR. Biomedical editors survey on peer review [Internet], 2018. Available: http://miror-ejd. eu/2018/11/12/biomedical-editors-surveyon-peer-review/
12. Damiano F. Search and Retrieve Scientific Publication Records from PubMed [Internet], 2019. Available: https://www. data-pulse. com/dev-site/easypubmed/
13. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www. R-project. org/
14. Jolliffe IT. Principal component analysis. 2nd edn. Springer, 2002.
15. Husson F, Josse J, Le S, et al. FactoMineR: A package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 2008;25:1-18.
16. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. AJE 2013;27.
17. QSR International. NVivo [Internet]. Available: https://www. qsrinternational. com/nvivo/home
18. Bates C, Gordon L, Travis E, et al. Striving for gender equity in academic medicine careers: A call to action. Acad Med 2016;91:1050-2.
19. Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, et al. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). BMJ 2016;i:i847.