EFFECTIVENESS OF EDITING IN PREPARATION OF ORIGINAL ARTICLES: RESULTS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY
Abstract
The data on effectiveness of editing in medical journals is restricted. Objective: to study an effectiveness of editing in improvement of manuscripts quality containing results of original study, which were published in the journal «Current Pediatrics» (Russia). Design: single blinded randomized controlled study in parallel groups. Consecutive eligible papers were sent to reviewers (n=137) who were randomised into 2 groups (1:1) for evaluation of five author’s or edited (accepted for publication) manuscripts. Main outcome measures: item of importance, originality, methods, data presentation, discussions and conclusion quality score were evaluated. Results: 102 (74%) participants gave at least one conclusion, 64 (47%) performed an estimation of all presented materials. 412 conclusions (208 on author’s manuscripts and 204 on edited ones) were analyzed. An analysis showed equal estimation of importance, methods, discussions and conclusions in both author’s and edited manuscripts. Evaluation of data presentation quality was higher in edited materials: odds ratio (OR) for estimation ≥ 3 according 5-point scale was 4.1 (95% CI 2.0–8.4) times higher than in author’s manuscripts. Higher estimation of editing effectiveness was received from «strict» readers (mean estimations of manuscripts quality in lower quartile). They mentioned that editing improves quality of data presentation — for estimation ≥ 3 according to 5-point scale OR was 7.8 (95% CI 2.9–20.6), conclusions — OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.0–5.2), methods — OR 2.2 (0.9–5.3; p = 0.068), and makes common impression of edited manuscripts better as well. Conclusion: editing improves quality of data presentation and description of conclusions and methods («strict» readers only) in manuscripts of original study.
Key words: reviewing, editing, original articles, quality.
(Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — Current Pediatrics. 2010;9(6):5-15)
Key words: reviewing, editing, original articles, quality.
(Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — Current Pediatrics. 2010;9(6):5-15)
About the Author
R.T. Saygitov
Scientific Center of Children’s Health, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990; 263 (10): 1323–1329.
2. Kronick D.A. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990; 263: 1321–1322.
3. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol. 2002; 20 (8): 357–358.
4. Горелова Л.Е. Первый медицинский журнал России. РМЖ. 2002; 1 0(24): 1133–1134.
5. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In: Godlee F., Jefferson T. eds. Peer review in health sciences. L.: BMJ Books. 1999. P. 7.
6. Johnston S.C., Lowenstein D.H., Ferriero D.M. et al. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Ann Neurol. 2007; 61 (4): 10–12.
7. Cobo E., Selva-O'Callagham A., Ribera J.M. et al. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2007; 2 (3): e332.
8. Goodman S.N., Berlin J., Fletcher S.W., Fletcher R.H. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 1994; 121 (1): 11–21.
9. Pierie J.P., Walvoort H.C., Overbeke A.J. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996; 348 (9040): 1480–1483.
10. Бащинский С. Качество российских научных публикаций, посвященных лечебным и профилактическим вмешательствам. Международный журнал медицинской практики. 2005; 1: 32–35.
11. Руперто Н. Абатацепт: новые возможности в терапии детей с полиартикулярным ювенильным идиопатическим артритом. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2010; 9 (2): 32–40.
12. Дондурей Е.А., Осидак Л.В., Суховецкая В.Ф. и др. Иммуномодулирующая терапия гриппа и острых респираторных инфекций у детей в условиях стационара. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2010; 9 (2): 45–53.
13. Чернышов В.Н., Сависько А.А., Лебеденко А.А. Новые возможности профилактики обострений бронхиальной астмы у детей при развитии острой респираторной инфекции. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2010; 9 (2): 54–57.
14. Кондратьева Е.И., Сутовская Д.В., Гринь Ю.Г., Шмаков В.Г. Роль фитотерапии в оптимизации санаторно-курортного этапа реабилитации больных хроническим тонзиллитом. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2010; 9 (2): 58–63.
15. Сугак А.Б., Дворяковский И.В. Оценка толщины комплекса интима–медиа общих сонных артерий у детей с ювенильным артритом и системной красной волчанкой. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2010; 9(2): 64–69.
16. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S. et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999; 318 (7175): 23–27.
17. Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., Moher D. et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010; 152 (11): 726–732.
18. Wager E., Middleton P. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical Journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (4): MR000002.
19. Stalenhoef A. Impact factor of the Netherlands Journal of Medicine >1! Neth. J. Med. 2007; 65(9): 359.
20. Lagerwij E.W. De lezers van het Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Ned. Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993; 137: 402–404.
21. Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F. et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998; 280(3): 231–233.
22. Lloyd M.E. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. J. Appl Behav Anal. 1990; 23(4): 539–543.
23. Nylenna M., Riis P., Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994; 272(2): 149–151.
24. Caelleigh A.S., Hojat M., Steinecke A., Gonnella J.S. Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript. Teach. Learn Med. 2003; 15 (3): 163-167.
25. Kliewer M.A., DeLong D.M., Freed K. et al. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004; 183 (6): 1545–1550.
26. Siegelman S.S. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Special report. Radiology. 1991; 178 (3): 637–642.
27. Baxt W.G., Waeckerle J.F., Berlin J.A., Callaham M.L. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann. Emerg. Med. 1998; 32 (3 Pt. 1): 310–317.
28. Schroter S., Black N. Evans S. et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J. R. Soc. Med. 2008; 101 (10): 507–514.
29. Godlee F., Gale C.R., Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998; 280 (3): 237–240.
Review
For citations:
Saygitov R. EFFECTIVENESS OF EDITING IN PREPARATION OF ORIGINAL ARTICLES: RESULTS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY. Current Pediatrics. 2010;9(6):5-15. (In Russ.)
Views:
559
Email this article 
