scholarly journals Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Meredith Phillips ◽  
Avonne Connor ◽  
Kelly Vander Ley ◽  
Kevin Naaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Outcomes Research ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Publishing Journal ◽  
Interpretation Of Results

BACKGROUNDThe Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. Peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards. As part of meeting these standards, reviewers and editors seek to minimize “spin,” defined elsewhere as “reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers.” METHODSTwo independent raters assessed the prevalence of spin in reports submitted for PCORI peer review by April 2018. We then assessed whether authors addressed comments about spin received during peer review. Because investigators who submit research reports before publishing journal articles might incorporate PCORI’s feedback in their journal articles, we also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles.RESULTSWe included 64 projects funded by PCORI. Spin was identified during peer review in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin in 47/55 (85%) of the revised and accepted research reports.Journal articles associated with 21/55 (38%) research reports contained spin that was also identified in the research report. PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 journal articles with results. Of these, 27/44 (61%) contained spin that was also identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for those accepted before and after PCORI peer review.DISCUSSIONMost reports submitted to PCORI included spin, which was mitigated during peer review. We found no evidence that peer review of PCORI research reports affected spin in journal articles. Some journal articles contained spin even when authors removed spin from their PCORI research reports.When both are available, PCORI research reports might be more useful to systematic reviewers and other stakeholders compared with journal articles about the same study because they include less reporting bias and other types of spin.

scholarly journals Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Meredith L. Phillips ◽  
Avonne E. Connor ◽  
Kelly J. Vander Ley ◽  
Kevin Naaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Methods Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. Results We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Discussion Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

scholarly journals Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e028732
Author(s):  
Ilya Ivlev ◽  
Kelly J Vander Ley ◽  
Jack Wiedrick ◽  
Kira Lesley ◽  
Amy Forester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Outcomes Research ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Online Training ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Quality Improvement Effort ◽  
Patient Advocates ◽  
Research Institute

ObjectiveThe peer review of completed Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded research includes reviews from patient reviewers (patients, caregivers, and patient advocates). Very little is known about how best to support these reviewers in writing helpful comments from a patient-centred perspective. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a new training in peer review for patient reviewers.DesignObservational study.SettingOnline.ParticipantsAdults registered in the PCORI Reviewer Database as a patient stakeholder.InterventionA new online training in peer review.Main outcome measuresChanges in reviewers’ knowledge and skills; change in self-efficacy and attitudes, satisfaction with the training and perceived benefits and relevance of the training.ResultsBefore-after training survey data were analysed for 37 (29.4% of 126) patient reviewers invited to participate in an online training as part of a quality improvement effort or as part of a PCORI peer review. The reviewers improved their answers to the knowledge questions (p<0.001, median number of answers improved 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), large effect size (ES) Cohen’sw=0.94) after the training, particularly in the questions targeting the specifics of PCORI peer review. Reviewers improved their skills in recognising helpful review comments, but those without peer-review background improved proportionally more (p=0.008, median number of answers improved 2 (95% CI 1 to 3), medium ESw=0.60). The use of training modestly increased reviewers’ confidence in completing a high-quality peer review (p=0.005, mean increase in 5-point Likert rating 0.51 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.86), small-to-medium ES Cliff’sdelta=0.32) and their excitement about providing a review slightly increased (p=0.019, mean increase in 5-point Likert rating 0.35 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.68), small ESdelta=0.19). All reviewers were satisfied with the training and would recommend it to other reviewers.ConclusionsTraining improved knowledge, skills and self-efficacy and slightly increased enthusiasm for completing a PCORI peer review.

Getting Published: An Editor’s Perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Roger E. Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Publishing Journal

The process of publishing journal articles is examined from the perspective of an editor. Suggestions are given for starting the writing process, producing a good manuscript, and improving your chances of having your manuscript accepted. The manuscript review process is discussed as well as reasons why editors reject manuscripts.

scholarly journals Methodological standards for qualitative and mixed methods patient centered outcomes research

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m4435
Author(s):  
Bridget Gaglio ◽  
Michelle Henton ◽  
Amanda Barbeau ◽  
Emily Evans ◽  
David Hickam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Outcomes Research ◽  
Patient Centered

Changing trends in quality of media reporting of suicide in the community following a celebrity suicide in India

2021 ◽  
pp. 000486742110096
Author(s):  
Vikas Menon ◽  
Sujita Kumar Kar ◽  
Ramdas Ransing ◽  
Ginni Sharma ◽  
Jigyansa Ipsita Pattnaik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online News ◽  
Significant Rise ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
World Health ◽  
Media Reporting ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Celebrity Suicide

Objective: Little is known about changes in quality of media reporting of suicide in the community following a celebrity suicide. Our objective was to compare trends in quality of media reporting of suicide, before and after the suicide of an Indian entertainment celebrity, against the World Health Organization suicide reporting guidelines. Method: Online news portals of English and local language newspapers, as well as television channels, were searched to identify relevant suicide-related news articles. Comparison of reporting characteristics before and after the celebrity suicide was performed using chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: A total of 3867 eligible news reports were retrieved. There was a significant increase in harmful reporting characteristics, such as reporting the name, age and gender of the deceased ( p < 0.001 for all comparisons), mentioning the location ( p < 0.001) and reason for suicide ( p = 0.04) and including photos of the deceased ( p = 0.002) following the celebrity suicide. Helpful reporting practices were less affected; there was a significant rise in inclusion of expert opinion ( p = 0.04) and mention of suicide-related warning signs ( p = 0.02). Conclusion: Following a celebrity suicide, significant changes in the quality of media reporting of suicide were noted with an increase in several potentially harmful reporting characteristics.

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

Stakeholder impact on the implementation of integrated care: Opportunities to consider for patient-centered outcomes research

2020 ◽  
pp. 106256
Author(s):  
Shannon M. Kearney ◽  
Kelly Williams ◽  
Cara Nikolajski ◽  
Margaret Park ◽  
Kevin L. Kraemer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Care ◽  
Outcomes Research ◽  
Patient Centered
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document