James Galipeau1, David Moher2, Craig Campbell3, Paul Hendry4, D William Cameron2, Anita Palepu5, Paul C Hébert6. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice Changing Research Building (CPCR 1) The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L6. Electronic address: jgalipeau@ohri.ca. 2. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice Changing Research Building (CPCR 1) The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L6; Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451, Smyth Rd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8M5. 3. Office of Professional Affairs, The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 774 Echo Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5N8. 4. Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451, Smyth Rd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8M5. 5. Department of Medicine, Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, University of British Columbia, 588 - 1081 Burrard Street, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z 1Y6. 6. Department of Medicine, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Hôpital Notre-Dame, 1560, rue Sherbrooke Est, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2L 4M1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training. RESULTS: Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing. CONCLUSION: Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training. RESULTS: Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing. CONCLUSION: Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.
Authors: Jonathan P Tennant; Jonathan M Dugan; Daniel Graziotin; Damien C Jacques; François Waldner; Daniel Mietchen; Yehia Elkhatib; Lauren B Collister; Christina K Pikas; Tom Crick; Paola Masuzzo; Anthony Caravaggi; Devin R Berg; Kyle E Niemeyer; Tony Ross-Hellauer; Sara Mannheimer; Lillian Rigling; Daniel S Katz; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza; Nazeefa Fatima; Marta Poblet; Marios Isaakidis; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Sébastien Renaut; Christopher R Madan; Lisa Matthias; Jesper Nørgaard Kjær; Daniel Paul O'Donnell; Cameron Neylon; Sarah Kearns; Manojkumar Selvaraju; Julien Colomb Journal: F1000Res Date: 2017-07-20
Authors: James Galipeau; Virginia Barbour; Patricia Baskin; Sally Bell-Syer; Kelly Cobey; Miranda Cumpston; Jon Deeks; Paul Garner; Harriet MacLehose; Larissa Shamseer; Sharon Straus; Peter Tugwell; Elizabeth Wager; Margaret Winker; David Moher Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Anthony Chauvin; David Moher; Doug Altman; David L Schriger; Sabina Alam; Sally Hopewell; Daniel R Shanahan; Alessandro Recchioni; Philippe Ravaud; Isabelle Boutron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 2.692