Showing papers by "Mildred K. Cho published in 1998"

Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: Context.—All authors may not be equal in the eyes of reviewers. Specifically, well-known authors may receive less objective (poorer quality) reviews. One study at a single journal found a small improvement in review quality when reviewers were masked to author identity.Objectives.—To determine whether masking reviewers to author identity is generally associated with higher quality of review at biomedical journals, and to determine the success of routine masking techniques.Design and Setting.—A randomized controlled trial performed on external reviews of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology , and Ophthalmology .Interventions.—Two peers reviewed each manuscript. In one study arm, both peer reviewers received the manuscript according to usual masking practice. In the other arm, one reviewer was randomized to receive a manuscript with author identity masked, and the other reviewer received an unmasked manuscript.Main Outcome Measure.—Review quality on a 5-point Likert scale as judged by manuscript author and editor. A difference of 0.5 or greater was considered important.Results.—A total of 118 manuscripts were randomized, 26 to usual practice and 92 to intervention. In the intervention arm, editor quality assessment was complete for 77 (84%) of 92 manuscripts. Author quality assessment was complete on 40 (54%) of 74 manuscripts. Authors and editors perceived no significant difference in quality between masked (mean difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.2 to 0.4) and unmasked (mean difference, −0.1; 95% CI, −0.5 to 0.4) reviews. We also found no difference in the degree to which the review influenced the editorial decision (mean difference, −0.1; 95% CI,−0.3 to 0.3). Masking was often unsuccessful (overall, 68% successfully masked; 95% CI, 58%-77%), although 1 journal had significantly better masking success than others (90% successfully masked; 95% CI, 73%-98%). Manuscripts by generally known authors were less likely to be successfully masked (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). When analysis was restricted to manuscripts that were successfully masked, review quality as assessed by editors and authors still did not differ.Conclusions.—Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews. Since manuscripts of well-known authors are more difficult to mask, and those manuscripts may be more likely to benefit from masking, the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.

Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking Success?

Abstract: Context.— In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success. Objectives.— To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences. Design.— Written questionnaire. Participants.— Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology). Main Outcome Measures.— Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking. Results.— There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P = .92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P = .43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P = .04). Conclusions.— Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers’ research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.

Mejora de la calidad de los informes de los ensayos clínicos aleatorio controlados. Recomendaciones del grupo de trabajo CONSORT

Abstract: This summary corresponds to the translation into Spanish of the Special Communication published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 1996, along with the editorial published in the same issue "How to report Randomized Controlled Trials. The Consort Statement". It describes the Consolidated Standars for Preparation of Controlled Clinical Trials, prepared by a work group made up of members of the SORT Group and of the Asilomar Work Group, along with the editor of a magazine and the author of the report on a clinical trial. The work was carried out by means of a Delphy process and the result was a check list and a process diagram. The check list is made up of 21 items that mainly refer to methods, results and discussions on the report of a controlled clinical trial, identifying the necessary information in order to be able to evaluate the internal and external value of the report, judging the improvement to be positive for the patient, the editors and the reviewers of the magazines.

Familial Disclosure in Defiance of Nonconsent

Abstract: This work was supported in part by grants from the Greenwall Foundation, the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy, and Veterans Administration Consortium on Informed Consent Research (all to P.S. and J.F.M.) and from the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute, Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Branch (to M.K.C. and P.S.). The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. The authors thank Arthur Caplan, Sheri Alpert, Barbara Weber, and an anonymous referee for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Testing for Alzheimer's.

Abstract: In his article “Allen Roses: From ‘street fighter’ to corporate insider” (News & Comment, 15 May, p. [1001][1]), Eliot Marshall notes (p. [1004][2]) that Roses disagreed with a group of experts at Stanford who had concluded that widespread molecular testing for late-onset Alzheimer's disease

Disease Genes Are Not Patentable: A Rebuttal of McGee

Abstract: Dr. McGee presents a cogent argument for the patentability of the diagnosis of gene forms that are found to be associated with disease or other phenotypic manifestations. We're convinced he's wrong. An analogy will help explain why.