Vivek Podder1, Amy Price2,3, Madhava Sai Sivapuram4, Ashwini Ronghe5, Srija Katta6, Avinash Kumar Gupta7, Rakesh Biswas8. 1. Undergraduate Medical Student of Tairunnessa Memorial Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 2. Patient Editor (Research and Evaluation), The BMJ, London, United Kingdom. 3. Continuing Education, The University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Undergraduate Medical Student of Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Foundation, Vijayawada, India. 5. Undergraduate Medical Student of Grant Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, India. 6. Undergraduate Pharmacy Student of St. Peters Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Warangal, India. 7. Undergraduate Medical Student of Universal College of Medical Sciences, Bhairahawa, Nepal. 8. Professor of Medicine, Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Nalgonda, India.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Collective peer review; Conversational learning; Medical education; Practice; Prepublication
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23