MANUSCRIPT QUALITY BEFORE AND AFTER PEER-REVIEW AND EDITING AT ANNALS OF INTERNAL-MEDICINE
MANUSCRIPT QUALITY BEFORE AND AFTER PEER-REVIEW AND EDITING AT ANNALS OF INTERNAL-MEDICINE
复制标题
DOI：
10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
复制
发表时间：
1994-07-01
影响因子：
39.2
通讯作者：
FLETCHER, RH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GOODMAN, SN;BERLIN, J;FLETCHER, RH
目的：评价同行评议和编辑对稿件质量的影响。地点：《内科学年鉴》编辑部。设计：研究前后设盲。研究对象：1992年3月至1993年3月期间在《内科学年鉴》接受发表的111篇连续的原始研究稿件。测量：我们使用了一个包含34个项目的手稿质量评估工具来评估研究报告的质量，而不是研究本身的质量。每个项目按1 ~ 5级评分。不知道的设计或研究目的的44名专家评审员评估手稿，与不同的人评估两个版本的每个手稿（前和后的编辑过程）。结果：34个项目中的33个改变了改进的方向，与最大的改进，在讨论研究的局限性，概括，使用置信区间，和语气的结论。总体而言，评分为3分或3分以上的项目百分比较基线75%增加了7.3%（95% CI，3.3%至11.3%）。平均项目评分从基线平均值3.5提高了0.23分（CI，0.07至0.39）。在底部的50%的病人表现出两到三倍的改善比那些在顶部的50%，mean.Conclusions回归校正后：同行评议和编辑提高医学研究报告的质量，特别是在那些领域，读者最依赖于决定的重要性和普遍性的研究结果。
Objective: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality.Setting: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine.Design: Masked before-after study.Manuscripts: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993.Measurements: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on al to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process).Results: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean.Conclusions: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.