Cargando…
Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals
Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manus...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9470276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36117870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210681 |
_version_ | 1784788806580305920 |
---|---|
author | Garcia-Costa, Daniel Forte, Anabel Lòpez-Iñesta, Emilia Squazzoni, Flaminio Grimaldo, Francisco |
author_facet | Garcia-Costa, Daniel Forte, Anabel Lòpez-Iñesta, Emilia Squazzoni, Flaminio Grimaldo, Francisco |
author_sort | Garcia-Costa, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006–2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9470276 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94702762022-09-15 Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals Garcia-Costa, Daniel Forte, Anabel Lòpez-Iñesta, Emilia Squazzoni, Flaminio Grimaldo, Francisco R Soc Open Sci Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006–2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors. The Royal Society 2022-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9470276/ /pubmed/36117870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210681 Text en © 2022 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Garcia-Costa, Daniel Forte, Anabel Lòpez-Iñesta, Emilia Squazzoni, Flaminio Grimaldo, Francisco Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
title | Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
title_full | Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
title_fullStr | Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
title_full_unstemmed | Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
title_short | Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
title_sort | does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? a study on 27 467 submissions to four journals |
topic | Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9470276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36117870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210681 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garciacostadaniel doespeerreviewimprovethestatisticalcontentofmanuscriptsastudyon27467submissionstofourjournals AT forteanabel doespeerreviewimprovethestatisticalcontentofmanuscriptsastudyon27467submissionstofourjournals AT lopezinestaemilia doespeerreviewimprovethestatisticalcontentofmanuscriptsastudyon27467submissionstofourjournals AT squazzoniflaminio doespeerreviewimprovethestatisticalcontentofmanuscriptsastudyon27467submissionstofourjournals AT grimaldofrancisco doespeerreviewimprovethestatisticalcontentofmanuscriptsastudyon27467submissionstofourjournals |