Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

How physicians view peer review - 'Research integrity and peer review'

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by RogerBlack, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. RogerBlack

    RogerBlack Senior Member

    Messages:
    884
    Likes:
    2,868
    https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8

    Background
    The aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making.

    Methods
    A 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database.

    Results
    The response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked. The NEJM, Lancet and The BMJ were deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training.

    Conclusions
    Junior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process.
     
    Simon, Jennifer J, TiredSam and 8 others like this.
  2. Manganus

    Manganus Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    Likes:
    394
    Canary islands
    Response rate 178/800.
     
    Jennifer J, TiredSam, MeSci and 2 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page