Cargando…
Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to study the methodological quality and error detection of the review by the participants of a peer review workshop. METHODS: All participants of the workshop were invited to peer review a randomized controlled trial. The manuscript was E-mailed to them afte...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5733429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29284812 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_372_17 |
_version_ | 1783286897837080576 |
---|---|
author | Praharaj, Samir Kumar Ameen, Shahul |
author_facet | Praharaj, Samir Kumar Ameen, Shahul |
author_sort | Praharaj, Samir Kumar |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to study the methodological quality and error detection of the review by the participants of a peer review workshop. METHODS: All participants of the workshop were invited to peer review a randomized controlled trial. The manuscript was E-mailed to them after introducing eight deliberate errors to it. Specific instructions and a deadline were provided. All the reviews were analyzed using review quality instrument (RQI). Furthermore, the rate and the type of errors identified were recorded. RESULTS: Of 25 participants, 16 (64%) returned the reviews. The mean total score on RQI was 4.12 (standard deviation 0.70, 95% confidence interval 3.74–4.50); the items which most reviewers did not discuss where the importance of research question and originality of the paper. The number of errors correctly identified varied from 0 to 6 (median 3), the most common being a wrong conclusion (87.5%), randomization procedure (50%), written informed consent (50%), ethics committee approval (42.8%), and masking (31.2%). Only 5 (31.2%) gave an overall recommendation on whether the manuscript should be accepted or not. CONCLUSIONS: Major errors were readily identified by the reviewers; however, the need for training was felt in some areas in which the review quality was modest. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5733429 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57334292017-12-28 Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review Praharaj, Samir Kumar Ameen, Shahul Indian J Psychol Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to study the methodological quality and error detection of the review by the participants of a peer review workshop. METHODS: All participants of the workshop were invited to peer review a randomized controlled trial. The manuscript was E-mailed to them after introducing eight deliberate errors to it. Specific instructions and a deadline were provided. All the reviews were analyzed using review quality instrument (RQI). Furthermore, the rate and the type of errors identified were recorded. RESULTS: Of 25 participants, 16 (64%) returned the reviews. The mean total score on RQI was 4.12 (standard deviation 0.70, 95% confidence interval 3.74–4.50); the items which most reviewers did not discuss where the importance of research question and originality of the paper. The number of errors correctly identified varied from 0 to 6 (median 3), the most common being a wrong conclusion (87.5%), randomization procedure (50%), written informed consent (50%), ethics committee approval (42.8%), and masking (31.2%). Only 5 (31.2%) gave an overall recommendation on whether the manuscript should be accepted or not. CONCLUSIONS: Major errors were readily identified by the reviewers; however, the need for training was felt in some areas in which the review quality was modest. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5733429/ /pubmed/29284812 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_372_17 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Indian Psychiatric Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Praharaj, Samir Kumar Ameen, Shahul Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review |
title | Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review |
title_full | Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review |
title_fullStr | Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review |
title_short | Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review |
title_sort | quality of the reviews submitted by attendees of a workshop on peer review |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5733429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29284812 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_372_17 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT praharajsamirkumar qualityofthereviewssubmittedbyattendeesofaworkshoponpeerreview AT ameenshahul qualityofthereviewssubmittedbyattendeesofaworkshoponpeerreview |