PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Elizabeth Wager

Publications and source records attributed to Elizabeth Wager.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a publisher's perspective.

These Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics describe Blackwell Publishing's position on the major ethical principles of academic publishing and review factors that may foster ethical behavior or create problems. The aims are to encourage discussion, to initiate changes where they are needed, and to provide practical guidance, in the form of Best Practice statements, to inform these changes. Blackwell Publishing recommends that editors adapt and adopt the suggestions outlined to best fit the needs of their own particular publishing environment.

Authorship↗
PubMed2006

Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: BioMed Central (BMC) requires authors to suggest four reviewers when making a submission. Editors searching for reviewers use these suggestions as a source. The review process of the medical journals in the BMC series is open--authors and reviewers know each other's identity--although reviewers can make confidential comments to the editor. Reviews are published alongside accepted articles so readers may see the reviewers' names and recommendations. Our objective was to compare the performance of author-nominated reviewers (ANR) with that of editor-chosen reviewers (ECR) in terms of review quality and recommendations about submissions in an online-only medical journal. METHODS: Pairs of reviews from 100 consecutive submissions to medical journals in the BMC series (with one author-nominated and one editor-chosen reviewer and a final decision) were assessed by two raters, blinded to reviewer type, using a validated review quality instrument (RQI) which rates 7 items on 5-point Likert scales. The raters discussed their ratings after the first 20 pairs (keeping reviewer type masked) and resolved major discrepancies in scoring and interpretation to improve inter-rater reliability. Reviewers' recommendations were also compared. RESULTS: Reviewer source had no impact on review quality (mean RQI score (+/- SD) 2.24 +/- 0.55 for ANR, 2.34 +/- 0.54 for ECR) or tone (mean scores on additional question 2.72 ANR vs 2.82 ECR) (maximum score = 5 in both cases). However author-nominated reviewers were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance (47 vs 35) and less likely to recommend rejection (10 vs 23) than editor-chosen reviewers after initial review (p < 0.001). However, by the final review stage (i.e. after authors had responded to reviewer comments) ANR and ECR recommendations were similar (65 vs 66 accept, 10 vs 14 reject, p = 0.47). The number of reviewers unable to decide about acceptance was similar in both groups at both review stages. CONCLUSION: Author-nominated reviewers produced reviews of similar quality to editor-chosen reviewers but were more likely to recommend acceptance during the initial stages of peer review.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.

BACKGROUND: Many papers in biomedical journals are drafted not by the named authors, but by professional medical writers working under the direction of those authors, usually funded by pharmaceutical companies. Although this practice can improve both the quality and speed of publications, it has attracted controversy as a result of concerns about the inappropriate influence of pharmaceutical companies. OBJECTIVES: To define ethical standards for professional medical writers who prepare papers for publication in medical journals. CONSENSUS METHODS: Guidelines were drafted after a 4-round Delphi consultation among a group of experienced medical writers. The guidelines were then further refined by seeking comments on the draft from a range of interested parties. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines stress the importance of respecting widely recognised authorship criteria, and in particular of ensuring that those listed as named authors have full control of the content of papers. The role of medical writers must be transparent, which normally means a mention in the acknowledgements section, together with a statement about funding. Writers and authors must have access to relevant data while writing papers. Medical writers have professional responsibilities to ensure that the papers they write are scientifically valid and are written in accordance with generally accepted ethical standards.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

Good practice for publishing the results of clinical trials.

Publication is an important stage in the research process, yet until recently few guidelines existed about how trials should be published. This article reviews recent developments such as Good Publication Practice for pharmaceutical companies and recommendations from medical editors, medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry which encourage responsible practices and greater transparency.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2004

Depressing research.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2004

The need for trial identifiers.

The medical literature is distorted by publication bias, duplicate publication and under-reporting of clinical trials. This can create problems in systematic numbering systems. The inclusion of trial identifiers reviews and meta-analysis which are increasingly used as the basis for evidence-based guidelines and therefore for treatment decisions. Various schemes for identifying trials and their associated publications are reviewed. These include trial registers and trial in all publications could greatly enhance the value of the medical literature and increase the robustness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Get peered!

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Play and Playthings↗
PubMed2003

Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies.

Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (GPP) for pharmaceutical companies are presented. The aim of the guidelines is to ensure that clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are published in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines cover companies' responsibility to an endeavour to publish results of all studies, companies' relations with investigators, measures to prevent redundant or premature publication, methods to improve trial identification and the role of professional medical writers. Our aim in publishing the GPP guidelines, which are the first to be developed by and for those working on publications in the pharmaceutical industry, is to stimulate discussion between journals, investigators and trial sponsors and to provide guidance to those who seek it. We also hope that pharmaceutical companies and others involved in developing publications arising from sponsored clinical trials will endorse the guidelines.

Drug Industry↗
PubMed2002

Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Editorial peer review is widely used to select submissions to journals for publication and is presumed to improve their usefulness. Sufficient research on peer review has been published to consider a synthesis of its effects. METHODS: To examine the evidence of the effects of editorial peer-review processes in biomedical journals, we conducted electronic and full-text searches of private and public databases to June 2000 and corresponded with the World Association of Medical Editors, European Association of Science Editors, Council of Science Editors, and researchers in the field to locate comparative studies assessing the effects of any stage of the peer-review process that made some attempt to control for confounding. Nineteen of 135 identified studies fulfilled our criteria. Because of the diversity of study questions, methods, and outcomes, we did not pool results. RESULTS: Nine studies considered the effects of concealing reviewer/author identity. Four studies suggested that concealing reviewer or author identity affected review quality (mostly positively); however, methodological limitations make their findings ambiguous, and other studies' results were either negative or inconclusive. One study suggested that a statistical checklist can improve report quality, but another failed to find an effect of publishing another checklist. One study found no evidence that training referees improves performance and another showed increased interrater reliability; both used open designs, making interpretation difficult. Two studies of how journals communicate with reviewers did not demonstrate any effect on review quality. One study failed to show reviewer bias, but the findings may not be generalizable. One nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed vs other journals. Two studies showed that editorial processes make articles more readable and improve the quality of reporting, but the findings may have limited generalizability to other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain.

Peer Review, Research↗