TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality of the reviews submitted by attendees of a workshop on peer review
AU - Praharaj, Samir
AU - Ameen, Shahul
PY - 2017/11/1
Y1 - 2017/11/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038359146&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038359146&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_372_17
DO - 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_372_17
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85038359146
SN - 0253-7176
VL - 39
SP - 785
EP - 788
JO - Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
JF - Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
IS - 6
ER -