Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSuperchi, Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorHren, Darko
dc.contributor.authorBlanco de Tena Davila, David
dc.contributor.authorRius, Roser
dc.contributor.authorRecchioni, Alessandro
dc.contributor.authorBoutron, Isabelle
dc.contributor.authorGonzález, José Antonio
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-15T16:39:27Z
dc.date.available2021-09-15T16:39:27Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationSuperchi, 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-2019-035604ca
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055ca
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/2796
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.en
dc.format.extent10ca
dc.language.isoengca
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupca
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openca
dc.relation.ispartofseries10;
dc.rightsThis 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/.en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.otherInvestigació biomèdicaca
dc.subject.otherEditors biomèdicsca
dc.subject.otherEines per avaluar la qualitat dels informesca
dc.subject.otherInvestigación biomédicaes
dc.subject.otherEditores biomédicoses
dc.subject.otherHerramientas para evaluar la calidad de los informeses
dc.subject.otherBiomedical researchen
dc.subject.otherBiomedical editorsen
dc.subject.otherTools for evaluating the quality of reportsen
dc.titleDevelopment of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical researchen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleca
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionca
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapca
dc.subject.udc61ca
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604ca


Files in this item

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

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/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/