Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review

From 2005 to 2010, we conducted 2 randomized studies on a journal (Medicina Clínica), where we took manuscripts received for publication and randomly assigned them to either the standard editorial process or to additional processes. Both studies were based on the use of methodological reviewers and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Vilaró, Marta, Cortés Martínez, Jordi|||0000-0002-3764-0795, Selva O’Callaghan, Albert, Urrutia, Agustí, Ribera, Josep Maria, Cardellach López, Francesc, Basagaña Flores, Xavier, Elmore, Matthew, Vilardell, Miquel, Altman, D.G., González Alastrué, José Antonio|||0000-0002-3113-4779, Cobo Valeri, Erik|||0000-0002-3534-5602
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2019
País:España
Institución:Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Repositorio:UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/174748
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/2117/174748
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Biomathematics
Sampling (Statistics)
Biomatemàtica
Mostreig (Estadística)
Classificació AMS::92 Biology and other natural sciences::92B Mathematical biology in general
Classificació AMS::62 Statistics::62D05 Sampling theory, sample surveys
Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Matemàtiques i estadística::Estadística aplicada::Estadística biosanitària
Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Matemàtiques i estadística::Estadística matemàtica::Anàlisi multivariant
Descripción
Sumario:From 2005 to 2010, we conducted 2 randomized studies on a journal (Medicina Clínica), where we took manuscripts received for publication and randomly assigned them to either the standard editorial process or to additional processes. Both studies were based on the use of methodological reviewers and reporting guidelines (RG). Those interventions slightly improved the items reported on the Manuscript Quality Assessment Instrument (MQAI), which assesses the quality of the research report. However, masked evaluators were able to guess the allocated group in 62% (56/90) of the papers, thus presenting a risk of detection bias. In this post-hoc study, we analyse whether those interventions that were originally designed for improving the completeness of manuscript reporting may have had an effect on the number of citations, which is the measured outcome that we used.

Similares en LA Referencia