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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Praharaj, Samir Kumar, Ameen, Shahul
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