Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Sara Schroter

Publications and source records attributed to Sara Schroter.

18 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.

BACKGROUND: Peer reviewers are usually unpaid and their efforts not formally acknowledged. Some journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers able to complete timely reviews, resulting in publication delay. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: A survey of peer reviewers from five biomedical journals was conducted to determine why reviewers decline to review and their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were scored on 5-point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low agreement. RESULTS: 551/890 (62%) reviewers responded. Factors rated most highly in importance for the decision to accept to review a paper included contribution of the paper to subject area (mean 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 86)), relevance of topic to own work (mean 3.46 (SD 0.99)) and opportunity to learn something new (mean 3.41 (SD 0.96)). The most highly rated factor important in the decision to decline to review was conflict with other workload (mean 4.06 (SD 1.31)). Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal's website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal's editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)). CONCLUSION: Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. Lack of time is the principal factor in the decision to decline. Reviewing should be formally recognised by academic institutions and journals should acknowledge reviewers' work.

Attitude↗
PubMed2006

From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We characterize the quantity and quality of data tables and figures in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) submitted to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and published in peer-reviewed journals. We investigate how the peer review process affected table and figure quality. METHODS: We reviewed 62 consecutive reports of RCTs submitted to the BMJ in 2001 that were later published in the BMJ (n=12) or elsewhere. We counted and categorized the tables and figures in both the initial submissions and published articles. Using standardized instruments and procedures, we analyzed the quality of these tables and figures and checked BMJ editorial documents to see whether changes were triggered by their review process. RESULTS: The numbers of tables and figures did not change markedly between submission and publication. Five percent of publications had no data tables; 56% had no data figures. Data density was low for published tables and figures. Tables seldom showed data stratified on important covariates; 88% of published tables were simple lists or were stratified on only 1 variable. Less than half the figures met their data presentation potential, with most failing to portray by-subject data and few displaying advanced features such as pairing, symbolic dimensionality, or small multiples. BMJ external peer reviewers seldom commented on tables or figures. CONCLUSION: Tables and figures can convey details and complex relationships not easily described in text. Although tables are included in most submitted and published articles, they are not presented optimally; figures are used sparingly and are also of suboptimal quality. Journals should consider improving their table and figure quality in the hope that improved graphics will empower readers to scrutinize the data, thereby dissuading authors from presenting biased analyses and misrepresented conclusions.

Documentation↗
PubMed2006

Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

CONTEXT: Many journals give authors who submit papers the opportunity to suggest reviewers. Use of these reviewers varies by journal and little is known about the quality of the reviews they produce. OBJECTIVE: To compare author- and editor-suggested reviewers to investigate differences in review quality and recommendations for publication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals. Editors were instructed to make decisions about their choice of reviewers in their usual manner. Journal administrators then requested additional reviews from the author's list of suggestions according to a strict protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Review quality using the Review Quality Instrument and the proportion of reviewers recommending acceptance (including minor revision), revision, or rejection. RESULTS: There were 788 reviews for 329 manuscripts. Review quality (mean difference in Review Quality Instrument score, -0.05; P = .27) did not differ significantly between author- and editor-suggested reviewers. The author-suggested reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.66) or revise (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-4.97). This difference was larger in the open reviews of BMJ than among the blinded reviews of other journals for acceptance (P = .02). Where author- and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recommendations, the final editorial decision to accept or reject a study was evenly balanced (50.9% of decisions consistent with the preferences of the author-suggested reviewers). CONCLUSIONS: Author- and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication.

Authorship↗
PubMed2006

Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: survey of authors.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether free access to research articles on bmj.com is an important factor in authors' decisions on whether to submit to the BMJ, whether the introduction of access controls to part of the BMJ's content has influenced authors' perceptions of the journal, and whether the introduction of further access controls would influence authors' perceptions. DESIGN: Cross sectional electronic survey. PARTICIPANTS: Authors of research articles published in the BMJ. RESULTS: 211/415 (51%) eligible authors responded. Three quarters (159/211) said the fact that all readers would have free access to their paper on bmj.com was very important or important to their decision to submit to the BMJ. Over half (111/211) said closure of free access to research articles would make them slightly less likely to submit research articles to the BMJ in the future, 14% (29/211) said they would be much less likely to submit, and 34% (71/211) said it would not influence their decision. Authors were equally divided in their opinion as to whether the closure of access to parts of the journal since January 2005 had affected their view of the BMJ; 40% (84/211) said it had, 38% (80/211) said it had not. In contrast, 67% (141/211) said their view of the BMJ would change if it closed access to research articles. Authors' comments largely focused on disappointment with such a regressive step in the era of open access publishing, loss of a distinctive feature of the BMJ, a perceived reduction in the journal's usefulness as a resource and global influence, restricted readership, less attractive to publish in, and the negative impact on the journal's image. CONCLUSIONS: Authors value free access to research articles and consider this an important factor in deciding whether to submit to the BMJ. Closing access to research articles would have a negative effect on authors' perceptions of the journal and their likeliness to submit.

Authorship↗
PubMed2006

Responsiveness of the coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire compared with the SF-36 and Seattle Angina Questionnaire.

We describe a comparison of the responsiveness of three validated instruments when used with patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and angioplasty (PTCA). Patients were randomly selected to receive the Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ), and either the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), or the SF-36 before and 3 months after coronary revascularisation. At total of 199 patients (127 CABG, 72 PTCA) completed the CROQ; 55/72 CABG and 34/38 PTCA patients also completed the SAQ or SF-36, respectively. Effect sizes and standardised response means were calculated as change over the 3-month period for scales measuring similar constructs on each instrument. We used bootstrap estimation to derive 95% confidence intervals for differences in the responsiveness indices. For CABG, the CROQ demonstrated significantly greater change in psychosocial functioning than the SF-36, but less than the SAQ. For PTCA, the CROQ showed greater change for symptoms than the SAQ, but the SAQ was more responsive in terms of physical functioning; and the CROQ showed significantly greater change than the SF-36 for psychosocial functioning. There were no other significant differences between similar scales on the three instruments. In conclusion, the CROQ was as responsive as the disease-specific SAQ and more responsive than the generic SF-36.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess journal authors' current knowledge and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing. DESIGN: An electronic survey. SETTING: Authors of research papers submitted to BMJ, Archives of Disease in Childhood, and Journal of Medical Genetics in 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Familiarity with and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing. RESULTS: 468/1113 (42%) responded. Prior to definitions being provided, 47% (222/468) and 38% (176/468) reported they were familiar with the terms "open access" and "author-pays" publishing, respectively. Some who did not at first recognize the terms, did claim to recognize them when they were defined. Only 10% (49/468) had submitted to an author-pays journal. Compared with non-open access subscription-based journals, 35% agreed that open access author-pays journals have a greater capacity to publish more content making it easier to get published, 27% thought they had lower impact factors, 31% thought they had faster and more timely publications, and 46% agreed that people will think anyone can pay to get published. 55% (256/468) thought they would not continue to submit to their respective journal if it became open access and charged, largely because of the reputation of the journals. Half (54%, 255/468) said open access has "no impact" or was "low priority" in their submission decisions. Two-thirds (66%, 308/468) said they would prefer to submit to a non-open access subscription-based journal than an open access author-pays journal. Over half thought they would have to make a contribution or pay the full cost of an author charge (56%, 262/468). CONCLUSIONS: The survey yielded useful information about respondents' knowledge and perceptions of these publishing models. Authors have limited familiarity with the concept of open-access publishing and surrounding issues. Currently, open access policies have little impact on authors' decision of where to submit papers.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors.

OBJECTIVE: To explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals. DESIGN: Semistructured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003. RESULTS: Authors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors. CONCLUSIONS: Authors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors.

SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC AND GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNALS publish full-length articles on their Web sites and abridged versions in their print journals. We surveyed a stratified random sample of BMJ readers and authors to elicit their preferred format for the abridged print version. Each participant received a research paper abridged in 3 different formats: conventional abridged version, journalistic version and enhanced-abstract version. Overall, 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%-48%) of the respondents said they liked the conventional version most, 31% (95% CI 28%-34%) preferred the journalistic version and 25% (95% CI 22%-27%) preferred the enhanced-abstract version. Twenty-eight percent (95% CI 25%-32%) indicated that use of the journalistic format for abridged articles would very likely stop them from submitting papers to BMJ, and 13% (95% CI 11%-16%) said the use of the enhanced-abstract version would stop them from submitting to BMJ. Publishers of general medical journals who publish shortened articles should consider that authors and readers prefer a more conventional style of abridged papers.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2004

Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how acceptable authors find the BMJ's current practice of publishing short versions of research articles in the paper journal and a longer version on the web and to determine authors' attitudes towards publishing only abstracts in the paper journal and publishing unedited versions on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication. DESIGN: Two cross sectional surveys. SETTING: General medical journal. PARTICIPANTS: Survey 1: corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (electronic long, paper short) process. Survey 2: corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted to BMJ. RESULTS: Response rates were 90% (104/115) in survey 1 and 75% (213/283) in survey 2. ELPS is largely acceptable to BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall, 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication. CONCLUSIONS: It is acceptable to authors to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website. Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version.

Attitude↗
PubMed2004

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of training on the quality of peer review. DESIGN: Single blind randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups receiving different types of training plus a control group. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers at a general medical journal. Interventions Attendance at a training workshop or reception of a self taught training package focusing on what editors want from reviewers and how to critically appraise randomised controlled trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of reviews of three manuscripts sent to reviewers at four to six monthly intervals, evaluated using the validated review quality instrument; number of deliberate major errors identified; time taken to review the manuscripts; proportion recommending rejection of the manuscripts. RESULTS: Reviewers in the self taught group scored higher in review quality after training than did the control group (score 2.85 v 2.56; difference 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.44; P = 0.001), but the difference was not of editorial significance and was not maintained in the long term. Both intervention groups identified significantly more major errors after training than did the control group (3.14 and 2.96 v 2.13; P < 0.001), and this remained significant after the reviewers' performance at baseline assessment was taken into account. The evidence for benefit of training was no longer apparent on further testing six months after the interventions. Training had no impact on the time taken to review the papers but was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending rejection (92% and 84% v 76%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Short training packages have only a slight impact on the quality of peer review. The value of longer interventions needs to be assessed.

Education, Professional↗
PubMed2003

Recruitment of doctors to non-standard grades in the NHS: analysis of job advertisements and survey of advertisers.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the proportion of advertised non-consultant hospital posts that do not conform to nationally recognised terms and conditions of service and to investigate why these posts exist, who fills them, and what the doctors in such jobs do. DESIGN: Analysis of job advertisements and a cross sectional survey of advertisers. SETTING: Job advertisements in one of the leading UK publications listing hospital doctor vacancies (BMJ Careers). RESULTS: Nearly a quarter of non-consultant posts advertised in the two study periods (23% and 21%) were for non-standard grade posts. A questionnaire was sent to the medical staffing officer for each post. Of 430 questionnaires sent out 192 (45%) were returned. 98 trusts said they advertised non-standard grades because there was no more funding from the deanery for approved posts and 75 because service needs could not be met by doctors in training grades. In 132 posts (69%) the post holder would be required to do on-call work, and 50 advertisers (26%) required on-call duty for 1 in 5 or more frequently, which would conflict with the European Working Time Directive. 131 advertisers (68%) expected the posts to be filled by doctors from outside the European Economic Area. CONCLUSIONS: Non-standard grade posts are mostly being created to meet service requirements when there is no more funding for standard training posts and are expected to be filled by doctors from overseas. Doctors in such posts can be more easily exploited and their careers hindered. The Department of Health's annual census should include non-standard grade doctors.

Advertising↗
PubMed2003

Evaluation of outcomes in chronic venous disorders of the leg: development of a scientifically rigorous, patient-reported measure of symptoms and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a practical and scientifically rigorous, patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate quality of life and symptoms across the range of conditions (eg, telangiectasias, varicose veins, edema, skin changes, leg ulcers) in chronic venous disorders of the leg (CVDL). METHODS: This study was a psychometric study within the VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study (VEINES), an international, prospective cohort study to evaluate clinical outcomes, quality of life, costs, and use of health services in CVDL. The study was set in the 166 general practices and 116 specialist clinics in Belgium, France, Italy, and Canada (Quebec) that participated in the VEINES study plus in additional specialist clinics in Ottawa and Montreal. Field testing was carried out in three samples of patients in four countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Canada), including participants in the VEINES study (n dagger 1531) and patients recruited in additional samples of 88 English-speaking patients (Canada) and 53 French-speaking patients (Belgium, France). The reliability and validity sample (n = 615) included 527 VEINES patients and 88 patients from the supplementary English-speaking sample. The test-retest sample (n = 135) included 53 French-speaking and 82 English-speaking patients from the supplementary samples. The responsiveness sample included 1516 VEINES patients. The 26-item VEINES-QOL/Sym is a new, patient-reported questionnaire to evaluate symptoms and quality of life and is available in four language versions (English, French, Italian, French Canadian). RESULTS: Standard psychometric tests confirmed the acceptability (missing data, item endorsement frequencies, floor and ceiling effects), reliability (internal consistency, item-total, inter-item correlations) and validity (content, construct, convergent, discriminant, known groups) of the four language versions of the VEINES-QOL/Sym and the test-retest reliability of the English and French versions and provided preliminary evidence of responsiveness in a pooled language sample. CONCLUSION: The VEINES-QOL/Sym is a practical and scientifically sound, patient-reported measure of outcomes in CVDL that has been developed with rigorous methods. As the only fully validated measure of quality of life and symptoms that is appropriate for use across the full spectrum of CVDL-related conditions, that is quick and easy to administer, and that is available in four languages, the VEINES-QOL/Sym provides a rigorous tool for improving the evaluation of outcomes in clinical trials, epidemiologic studies, and audit.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

How statistical expertise is used in medical research.

CONTEXT: Investigation of the nature and frequency of statistician involvement in medical research and its relation to the final editorial decision. METHODS: Authors of original research articles who submitted to BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine from May through August 2001 were sent a short questionnaire at the time of manuscript submission. Authors were asked if they received assistance from a person with statistical expertise, the nature of any such contribution, and reasons why, if no statistical input was received. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (704/943); methodological input was reported for 514 (73%) of these papers. In 435 papers (85%), such input was provided by biostatisticians or epidemiologists and, if deemed significant, was typically associated with authorship. A total of 33 of 122 methodologists (27%) whose main contribution started at the analysis stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship. Research without methodological assistance was more likely to be rejected without review (71% vs 57%; chi(2) = 10.6; P =.001) and possibly less likely to be accepted for publication (7% vs 11%; chi(2) = 2.37; P =.12). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical input to medical research is widely recommended but inconsistently obtained. Individuals providing such expertise are often not involved until the analysis of data and many go unrecognized by either authorship or acknowledgment.

Authorship↗
PubMed2002

The community-acquired pneumonia symptom questionnaire: a new, patient-based outcome measure to evaluate symptoms in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: s: To develop and validate a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate symptoms in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). DESIGN: A psychometric study within an international, prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The CAP-symptom questionnaire (CAP-Sym) is a new, 18-item, patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates the bothersomeness of CAP-related symptoms during the past 24 h using a 6-point Likert scale. We used "gold standard" psychometric methods to comprehensively evaluate the acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the CAP-Sym. SETTING: Sixty-four centers in 13 countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom). PATIENTS: Five hundred fifty-six patients with CAP, recruited from outpatient clinics, general practice, and hospital centers. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization 1:1 to moxifloxacin (400 mg once daily), oral or standard oral treatment (amoxicillin, 1 g tid, or clarithromycin, 500 mg bid), alone or in combination, for up to 14 days. RESULTS: Standard psychometric tests confirmed the acceptability (item nonresponse, item-endorsement frequencies, item/scale floor and ceiling effects), reliability (internal consistency, item-total and inter-item correlations, test-retest reliability), validity (content, construct, convergent, discriminant, known groups), and responsiveness of the CAP-Sym. CONCLUSIONS: The CAP-Sym is a practical and scientifically sound patient-based outcome measure of CAP-related symptoms that has been developed using "gold standard" methods. As the only fully validated measure of symptoms in patients with CAP, which is quick and easy to administer and is more responsive than the generic Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, the CAP-Sym provides a practical and rigorous method for improving the evaluation of outcomes in clinical trials and audit.

Adult↗