scholarly journals RETRACTION:  How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 805
Author(s):  
Greg Irving ◽  
John Holden
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Link Type

At the request of the authors Greg Irving and John Holden, the article titled “How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science” has been retracted from F1000Research. The authors have taken this decision after considering the methodological concerns raised by a peer reviewer during the post-publication open peer review process. As the methodology has been deemed to be unreliable, the article is now retracted. This applies to all three versions of the article: Irving G and Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:222 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.1) Irving G and Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science [version 2; referees: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:222 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.2) Irving G and Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science [version 3; referees: 3 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 5:222 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8114.3).

scholarly journals Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Chauvin ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
David Moher ◽  
David Schriger ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diagnostic Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Link Type ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document