The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals

Elm, Erik von; Wandel, Simon; Jüni, Peter

doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2236-0

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of published LTE focused on methodological aspects of the RCT specific to its analysis, intervention and population (Table 3 ). These results support the idea that LTEs can be used as a form of post-publication peer review and that they can play an important role in identifying potential methodological flaws [ 7 , 12 ]. However, only a small proportion of articles undergo substantive criticism in LTE (e.g., a problem that suggest fatal flaws in the design that could invalidate the research) [ 4 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Baethge et al conducted a search in Medline in 2007, and found that only 15,312 letters and comments were generated from a total of 117,843 original published clinical articles and reviews [ 12 ]. Furthermore, criticisms are often ignored and undervalued by researchers and clinicians even though they have the potential to shape clinical knowledge [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]. This work also highlights the potential for LTE to be used as a unique knowledge translation tool for journal readers (clinicians and researchers) and editors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LTE have also been used to teach critical appraisal skills for medical students [ 1 ] and to enhance the educational value of journal clubs [ 2 ]. They are considered a form of post-publication peer review and an essential part of scientific debate [ 3 - 7 ]. LTE provide a platform to comment on, clarify and correct published research by alerting readers about aspects of a paper that may have been overlooked by authors, peer-reviewers and editors [ 5 - 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What do letters to the editor publish about randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo identify published letters to the editor (LTE) written in response to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), determine the topics addressed in the letters, and to examine if these topics were affected by the characteristics and results of the RCTs.MethodsComparative cross-sectional study of a representative sample of RCTs from a set of high-impact medical journals (BMJ, Lancet, NEJM, JAMA, and Annals of Internal Medicine). RCTs and their published LTE were searched from these 5 journals in 2007. Data were collected on RCTs and their characteristics (author affiliation, funding source, intervention, and effect on the primary outcome) and the topics addressed in published LTE related to these RCTs. Analysis included chi-square and regression analysis (RCT characteristics) and thematic analysis (LTE topics).ResultsOf 334 identified RCTs, 175 trials had at least one LTE. Of these, 381 published LTE were identified. Most RCTs, tested drug interventions (68%), were funded by government (54%) or industry (33%), and described an intervention that had a positive impact on the primary outcome (62%). RCT authors were primarily affiliated with an academic centre (78%). Ninety percent of the 623 LTE topics concerned methodological issues regarding the analysis, intervention, and population in the RCT. There was a significant association between funding source and impact on outcomes (p = 0.002) or type of intervention tested (p = 0.001) in these trials. Clinical and “Other” LTE topics were more likely to be published in response to a government funded RCT (p = 0.005 and p = 0.033, respectively); no other comparisons were significant.ConclusionsThis study showed that most LTE are about methodological topics, but found little evidence to support that these topics are affected by the characteristics or results of the RCTs. The lack of association may be explained by editorial censorship as a small proportion of LTE that are submitted are actually published.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do letters to the editor publish about randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study characterizes an exploratory and descriptive research, applying bibliometric analysis (ANURADHA; SHALINI, 2007;QIU;CHEN, 2009;VON ELM et al, 2009) as the research method. Thus, through the specific procedures to be described, it will lead to an overview of the publications about no-tillage from 2006 to 2011.…”

Section: Materials and Methodosmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of the main topics on no-tillage researches

Abbade

Kawano

et al. 2016

Rev. Agro. Amb.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:No-tillage represents a relevant technological advance in agriculture, generating economic and environmental benefits. The main objective of this paper was to perform an overview analysis of academic publications about no-tillage. A bibliometric survey was conducted based on the most cited articles in Web of Science database. Thus, lexical and multiple correspondence analyses were performed with the most frequent words in title, abstract and keyword fields. The results suggest that there is a strong emphasis on no-tillage publications on environmental issues, such as carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions.KEY WORDS: Agriculture Conservation; Climate Change; Sustainable Crop Rotation. O PANORAMA DOS PRINCIPAIS TEMAS DAS PESQUISAS SOBRE PLANTIO DIRETORESUMO: O plantio direto representa um importante avanço tecnológico para a agricultura, gerando benefícios econômicos e ambientais. Este artigo objetivou realizar uma análise do panorama das publicações acadêmicas sobre o plantio direto. Uma pesquisa bibliométrica foi conduzida com base nos artigos mais citados na plataforma Web of Science. Assim, foram realizadas análises léxicais e de correspondência múltipla a partir das palavras mais frequentes nos campos: título, resumo e palavras-chave, presentes na plataforma. Os resultados sugerem que há

show abstract

“…• Stringent limits on length and the number of references, which can make it challenging -if not impossible -for experts to explain the issues clearly and convincingly (Altman 2005;von Elm et al 2009). As a result, potential post-publication peer reviewers may decide that a letter to the editor is not an efficient way to raise issues that require attention, and may opt to post a comment on PubPeer.com or a blog instead (Saunders 2011).…”

Section: Pppr: How Hard Can It Be?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

Matarese¹,

Shashok²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of post-publication peer review (PPPR) as a type of knowledge exchange has been emphasized by several authorities in research publishing, yet biomedical journals do not always facilitate this type of publication. Here we report our experience publishing a commentary intended to offer constructive feedback on a previously published article. We found that publishing our comment required more time and effort than foreseen, because of obstacles encountered at some journals. Using our professional experience as authors' editors and our knowledge of publication policies as a starting point, we reflect on the probable reasons behind these obstacles, and suggest ways in which journals could make PPPR easier. In addition, we argue that PPPR should be more explicitly valued and rewarded in biomedical disciplines, and suggest how these publications could be included in research evaluations. Eliminating obstacles and disincentives to PPPR is essential in light of the key roles of post-publication analysis and commentary in drawing attention to shortcomings in published articles that were overlooked during pre-publication peer review.

show abstract

The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

What do letters to the editor publish about randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

What do letters to the editor publish about randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

An overview of the main topics on no-tillage researches

Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About