JRSM > Volume 101, Number 10 > Pp. 507-514

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JRSM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schroter, S. Articles by Smith, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Sara Schroter Nick Black Stephen Evans Fiona Godlee Lyda Osorio   Richard Smith

¹ BMJ BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, UK
² London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine London WC1E 7HT, UK

Correspondence to: Dr Sara Schroter sschroter{at}bmj.com

Objective To analyse data from a trial and report the frequencies with which major and minor errors are detected at a general medical journal, the types of errors missed and the impact of training on error detection.

Design 607 peer reviewers at the BMJ were randomized to two intervention groups receiving different types of training (face-to-face training or a self-taught package) and a control group. Each reviewer was sent the same three test papers over the study period, each of which had nine major and five minor methodological errors inserted.

Setting BMJ peer reviewers.

Main outcome measures The quality of review, assessed using a validated instrument, and the number and type of errors detected before and after training.

Results The number of major errors detected varied over the three papers. The interventions had small effects. At baseline (Paper 1) reviewers found an average of 2.58 of the nine major errors, with no notable difference between the groups. The mean number of errors reported was similar for the second and third papers, 2.71 and 3.0, respectively. Biased randomization was the error detected most frequently in all three papers, with over 60% of reviewers rejecting the papers identifying this error. Reviewers who did not reject the papers found fewer errors and the proportion finding biased randomization was less than 40% for each paper.

Conclusions Editors should not assume that reviewers will detect most major errors, particularly those concerned with the context of study. Short training packages have only a slight impact on improving error detection.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JRSM:

The collapse of capitalism, values – and peer review?

Kamran Abbasi
JRSM 2008 101: 479. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Wager and K. Abbasi Medical editors and trial reporting: A betrayal of patient care J R Soc Med, January 1, 2009; 102(1): 4 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]