同行评议减少了PCORI研究报告中的旋转。

Evan Mayo-Wilson, Meredith L Phillips, Avonne E Connor, Kelly J Vander Ley, Kevin Naaman, Mark Helfand
{"title":"同行评议减少了PCORI研究报告中的旋转。","authors":"Evan Mayo-Wilson,&nbsp;Meredith L Phillips,&nbsp;Avonne E Connor,&nbsp;Kelly J Vander Ley,&nbsp;Kevin Naaman,&nbsp;Mark Helfand","doi":"10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638354/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports.\",\"authors\":\"Evan Mayo-Wilson,&nbsp;Meredith L Phillips,&nbsp;Avonne E Connor,&nbsp;Kelly J Vander Ley,&nbsp;Kevin Naaman,&nbsp;Mark Helfand\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638354/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:以患者为中心的结果研究所(PCORI)有义务对所有资助项目进行同行评审并公开发布“最终研究报告”。PCORI同行评审强调遵守PCORI的方法标准和伦理科学交流原则。在同行评审过程中,审稿人和编辑力求确保结果被客观地呈现并得到适当的解释,例如,不歪曲事实。方法:两名独立评价员对发给作者的PCORI同行评议反馈进行评估。我们计算了同行评议中确定自旋的报告的比例,以及确定的自旋类型。我们纳入了2018年4月之前提交的报告,其中至少有一篇相关期刊文章。然后,同样的评分者评估作者是否回应了审稿人关于spin的评论。评分者还评估了在PCORI同行评议中发现的自旋是否出现在相关的期刊文章中。结果:我们纳入了64个pcori资助的项目。同行审稿人或编辑在55/64(86%)提交的研究报告中发现了虚假报道。spin的类型包括报告偏差(46/55;84%),不恰当的解释(40/55;73%),结果外推不当(15/55;27%),以及因果关系归因不当(5/55;9%)。作者讨论了与47/55(85%)的报告相关的关于spin的评论。在110篇相关期刊文章中,PCORI关于自旋的评论可能适用于44/110(40%)篇文章,其中27/44(61%)篇文章包含与PCORI研究报告中确定的相同的自旋。在PCORI同行评议之前和之后接受的文章中,带有spin的文章比例相似(63% vs 58%)。讨论:正如spin在期刊文章和新闻稿中很常见一样,我们发现提交给PCORI的大多数报告都包含spin。虽然在资助者的同行评审过程中,大多数自旋得到了缓解,但我们发现没有证据表明对PCORI报告的评审影响了期刊文章的自旋。资助者可以探索旨在减少他们所支持的研究发表的文章中的虚假报道的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study. Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals. Enhancing reporting through structure: a before and after study on the effectiveness of SPIRIT-based templates to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols. Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1