Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process

Reproducibility of Exercise Interventions in Randomized Controlled Trials for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff-Related Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the reproducibility of exercise therapy interventions in randomized controlled trials for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP).

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus from studies published from database inception to April 23, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials studying the use of exercise therapy for RCRSP.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers extracted exercise reporting details from all studies using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the modified Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). The same 2 reviewers assessed risk of bias of all studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2.0.

DATA SYNTHESIS

For 104 studies meeting inclusion criteria, the average number of items reported on the TIDieR was 5.27 (SD 2.50, range 1-12 out of 12) and 5.09 (SD 4.01, range 0-16 out of 16) on the CERT. Improved reporting over time was seen on both the TIDieR and CERT dating back to 1993 and through April 23, 2022. When comparing groups of studies published before and after the TIDieR (2014) and CERT (2016) were established, a statistically significant increase in median scores was noted on the TIDieR (P=.02) but not the CERT (P=.31). Quality of exercise therapy reporting was highest in studies with "low risk" of bias, and lowest in studies with "high risk" of bias on the RoB-2.

CONCLUSION

Overall exercise reporting in trials for RCRSP is incomplete despite the development of the TIDieR and CERT checklists. This has implications for translating evidence into practice.

Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer

Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called «peer review», considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers -and authors- to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice

Ethical considerations are central to all medicine though, likely, nowhere more essential than in the practice of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Through in vitro fertilization (IVF), this is the only field in medicine involved in creating human life. IVF has, indeed, so far led to close to 10 million births worldwide. Yet, relating to substantial changes in clinical practice of IVF, the medical literature has remained surprisingly quiet over the last two decades. Major changes especially since 2010, however, call for an updated commentary. Three key changes deserve special notice: Starting out as a strictly medical service, IVF in recent years, in efforts to expand female reproductive lifespans in a process given the term “planned” oocyte cryopreservation, increasingly became more socially motivated. The IVF field also increasingly underwent industrialization and commoditization by outside financial interests. Finally, at least partially driven by industrialization and commoditization, so-called add-ons, the term describing mostly unvalidated tests and procedures added to IVF since 2010, have been held responsible for worldwide declines in fresh, non-donor live birthrates after IVF, to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. We here, therefore, do not offer a review of bioethical considerations regarding IVF as a fertility treatment, but attempt to point out ethical issues that arose because of major recent changes in clinical IVF practice.

Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues

COVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints, and (iii) the relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues. Manuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and September 27 2020 were assessed for the probability of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and those published were evaluated for submission-to-acceptance time. The extent of public discussion was assessed based on Altmetric and Disqus data. The Retraction Watch Database and PubMed were used to explore the retraction of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles and preprints. With adjustment for the preprinting server and number of deposited versions, COVID-19-related preprints were more likely to be published within 120 days since the deposition of the first version (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.80-2.14) as well as over the entire observed period (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31-1.48). Submission-to-acceptance was by 35.85 days (95% CI: 32.25-39.45) shorter for COVID-19 articles. Public discussion of preprints was modest and COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020. Current data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7.

Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations

The principal goal of the research study is to analyze the transparency of a selection of academic journals based on an analysis model with 20 indicators grouped into 6 parameters. Given the evident interest in and commitment to transparency among quality academic journals and researchers’ difficulties in choosing journals that meet a set of criteria, we present indicators that may help researchers choose journals while also helping journals to consider what information from the editorial process to publish, or not, on their websites to attract authors in the highly competitive environment of today’s scholarly communication. To test the validity of the indicators, we analyze a small sample: the Spanish Communications and Library and Information Science journals listed in the Scimago Journal Rank. The results confirm that our analysis model is valid and can be extrapolated to other disciplines and journals.

A slight glance at peer review

In order to ensure that the highest quality of literature is published, most journals utilize a peer review process for manuscripts submitted. Although the primary purpose for this process is to filter out ”bad science”, the process is not perfect. While there is a general consensus among researchers and clinicians that something must be done to improve upon the method for properly vetting manuscripts, there are conflicting opinions on how to best implement new policies. In this paper, we discuss the most well-supported suggestions to improve the process, with the hopes of increasing rigor and reproducibility, ensuring double-blinding, developing set guidelines, offering early training to reviewers, and giving reviewers better feedback and recognition for their work.

A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies

BACKGROUND

The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies.

METHODS

The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors (≥ 1.452 and ≤ 1.436, respectively).

RESULTS

Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P = .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P = .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P = .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P = .001), registration of clinical trials (P = .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal.

Collective Conversational Peer Review of Journal Submission: A Tool to Integrate Medical Education and Practice

BACKGROUND

In this study, we demonstrate a collective collaborative, conversational, pre-publication peer review of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, a group of research-oriented undergraduate medical and pharmacy students and their teacher collectively on an online forum, discuss and review a randomized controlled trial submitted to the Annals of Neurosciences and the explanatory commentary from each reviewer makes a basic scaffold for critical appraisal of the manuscript.

RESULTS

This method provided the opportunity for students to engage in online interactive training and allowed them to understand tools used for critical appraisal of a study. Students were incentivized by the potential publication credit and they look forward to continuing this work and perhaps providing one small step to making medical education more interactive.

CONCLUSION

Open peer review involving a group of reviewers at a time produces multidirectional reviewing concepts, thus helps to improve the quality of paper and also may reduce the time between review and publication.