Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

Home | About RECERCAT | Contact

Català | Castellano

All of RECERCAT

By Communities &
Collections By Defense Date By Authors By Titles By Subject

This Collection

By Defense Date By Authors By Titles By Subject

Statistics

View Statistics All RECERCAT

My RECERCAT

Other repositories directory

RECERCAT Home > Universitat Internacional de Catalunya > Recerca > Articles > Ciències de la Salut > View document

To access the full text documents, please follow this link: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/2796

dc.contributor.author	Superchi, Cecilia
dc.contributor.author	Hren, Darko
dc.contributor.author	Blanco de Tena Davila, David
dc.contributor.author	Rius, Roser
dc.contributor.author	Recchioni, Alessandro
dc.contributor.author	Boutron, Isabelle
dc.contributor.author	González, José Antonio
dc.date	2021-09-15T16:39:27Z
dc.date	2021-09-15T16:39:27Z
dc.date	2020
dc.identifier	Superchi, Cecilia; Hren, Darko; Blanco de Tena Davila, David [et al.]. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open, 2020, 10, e035604. Disponible en: <https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/6/e035604>. Fecha de acceso: 15 sep. 2021. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604
dc.identifier	2044-6055
dc.identifier	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/2796
dc.identifier	http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/2796
dc.description	Objective: To develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. Methods We conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis. Results: A total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments). Conclusion: Assessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.
dc.format	10
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	BMJ Publishing Group
dc.relation	BMJ Open
dc.relation	10;
dc.rights	This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.rights	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	Investigació biomèdica
dc.subject	Editors biomèdics
dc.subject	Eines per avaluar la qualitat dels informes
dc.subject	Investigación biomédica
dc.subject	Editores biomédicos
dc.subject	Herramientas para evaluar la calidad de los informes
dc.subject	Biomedical research
dc.subject	Biomedical editors
dc.subject	Tools for evaluating the quality of reports
dc.subject	61
dc.title	Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Show simple item record

All of RECERCAT

This Collection

Statistics

My RECERCAT

Related documents

Other documents of the same author