RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2008;101:507-514
doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062
© 2008 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JRSM
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schroter, S.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
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


Figure 1
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Proportion of reviewers identifying each error for those who did and did not recommend rejection of each paper

A: Reviewers rejecting Paper 1 (n=335); B: Reviewers not rejecting Paper 1 (n=156); C: Reviewers rejecting Paper 2 (n=346); D: Reviewers not rejecting Paper 2 (n=71); E: Reviewers rejecting Paper 3 (n=325); F: Reviewers not rejecting Paper 3 (n=74)

Errors: 1, Biased randomization procedure; 2, Inconsistent denominator; 3, Unjustified conclusions; 4, Poor response rate; 5, Poor justification; 6, Discrepancy between abstract & results; 7, ITT would be appropriate; 8, No sample size calculation; 9, Unknown reliability & validity; 10, No explanation of drop outs; 11, No ethics approval; 12, Hawthorne effect; 13, Word reversal; 14, Inconsistency between text & tables

 

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



MDU Exam Doctor

 BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics Exam Doctor - The interactive revision site for trainee doctors