| Title |
Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0000332 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erik Cobo, Albert Selva-O'Callagham, Josep-Maria Ribera, Francesc Cardellach, Ruth Dominguez, Miquel Vilardell |
| Abstract |
Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 30 | 25% |
| United States | 21 | 17% |
| Germany | 9 | 7% |
| Australia | 7 | 6% |
| Spain | 5 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 56 | 46% |
| Members of the public | 53 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Croatia | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 28% |
| Unknown | 5 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |