This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Martin J. Gardner, PhD; Jane Bond, MSc

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1355-1357.

Abstract
Statistical assessment of papers submitted to the British Medical Journal has increased to some 300 papers annually. The assessment produces a recommendation to the editor on each paper from a statistical viewpoint together with a completed checklist that indicates the quality of certain important features. This exploratory study was aimed at monitoring the process. It reports a comparison of checklist answers on 45 papers as originally submitted with those on the papers as subsequently published. Of the 45 papers, only 5 (11%) were considered statistically acceptable at submission, but this increased to 38 (84%) after publication. Revisions had not been made adequately in 4 of the 7 unsatisfactory published papers, and the 3 others were thought to be of dubious validity. A major omission from at least 28 papers was information on sample size calculations. It is concluded that statistical assessment is beneficial but that further efforts by authors and assessors could make it even more effective.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1355-1357)

Author Affiliations
From the MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit (Dr Gardner) and the Department of Statistics (Ms Bond), University of Southampton, and Southampton General Hospital (Dr Gardner), Southampton, England.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO9 4XY, England (Dr Gardner).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Kudos
Reider
Am J Sports Med 2008;36:2287-2288.
FULL TEXT  

Errors in the archives of dermatology and the journal of the american academy of dermatology from january through december 2003.
Neville et al.
Arch Dermatol 2006;142:737-740.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Rothwell and Martyn
Brain 2000;123:1964-1969.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevention of Recurrent Depression With Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Mago et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:479-480.
FULL TEXT  

Changes to Manuscripts During the Editorial Process: Characterizing the Evolution of a Clinical Paper
Purcell et al.
JAMA 1998;280:227-228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Adherence to Published Standards of Reporting: A Comparison of Placebo-Controlled Trials Published in English or German
Junker
JAMA 1998;280:247-249.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:181-211.
ABSTRACT  

Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg et al.
JAMA 1996;276:637-639.
ABSTRACT  

A Proposal for Structured Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials
The Standards of Reporting Trials Group et al.
JAMA 1994;272:1926-1931.
ABSTRACT  

All Buildings Great and Small: Design Review From High Rise to Houses
Stamps
Environment and Behavior 1994;26:402-420.
ABSTRACT