Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

Erik Cobo; Albert Selva-O'Callagham; Josep-Maria Ribera; Francesc Cardellach; Ruth Dominguez; Miquel Vilardell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000332

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

Erik Cobo ,

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: erik.cobo@upc.edu

Affiliations Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Technological University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain, Medicina Clínica, Barcelona, Spain
⨯
Albert Selva-O'Callagham,

Affiliations Department of Internal Medicine, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, Medicina Clínica, Barcelona, Spain
⨯
Josep-Maria Ribera,

Affiliations Hematology Department, Hospital Universitari, Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain, Medicina Clínica, Barcelona, Spain
⨯
Francesc Cardellach,

Affiliations Departament de Medicina, Hospital Clínic i Provincial i Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Medicina Clínica, Barcelona, Spain
⨯
Ruth Dominguez,

Affiliation Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Technological University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
⨯
Miquel Vilardell

Affiliations Department of Internal Medicine, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, Medicina Clínica, Barcelona, Spain
⨯

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

Erik Cobo,
Albert Selva-O'Callagham,
Josep-Maria Ribera,
Francesc Cardellach,
Ruth Dominguez,
Miquel Vilardell

Published: March 28, 2007
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000332

Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Missing evidence-based evaluations

Posted by erik_cobo on 03 Apr 2007 at 13:36 GMT

As co-author of this paper I strongly think that best evaluation policies should result in faster selection of better procedures in any field. In this paper we confirmed the positive effect of including a reviewer but "the suggestion" to employ a reporting guideline was not enough.
As another example, the selection of best AIDS treatment through randomized experiments beneficiate so many patients.
The question is: Do you feel there are other scientific and technical fields were evaluation is not performed with the standards it merits?

Subject Areas
?

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.
We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Peer review
Is the Subject Area "Peer review" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Research reporting guidelines
Is the Subject Area "Research reporting guidelines" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Research assessment
Is the Subject Area "Research assessment" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Scientific publishing
Is the Subject Area "Scientific publishing" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Randomized controlled trials
Is the Subject Area "Randomized controlled trials" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Factorial design
Is the Subject Area "Factorial design" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Medicine and health sciences
Is the Subject Area "Medicine and health sciences" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Metaanalysis
Is the Subject Area "Metaanalysis" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

Reader Comments

Post Your Discussion Comment

Why should this posting be reviewed?

Thank You!

Missing evidence-based evaluations

Posted by erik_cobo on 03 Apr 2007 at 13:36 GMT