Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Tutorial

A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials

Authors: Chris Del Mar, Tammy C. Hoffmann

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task.
This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into ‘major’ (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and ‘minor’ (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable.
Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper’s strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Barnes C, Boutron I. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med. 2015;13:158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Barnes C, Boutron I. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med. 2015;13:158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010;5:e10072.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010;5:e10072.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Collins G, Boutron I, Yu L, Cook J. Impact of peer review on reports of randomized trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hopewell S, Collins G, Boutron I, Yu L, Cook J. Impact of peer review on reports of randomized trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101:507–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101:507–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Patel JB. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014;12:128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Patel JB. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014;12:128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–6.CrossRefPubMed Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
go back to reference Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Essential resources for writing and publishing health research. www.equator-network.org. [accessed 10 Sept 2015]. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Essential resources for writing and publishing health research. www.​equator-network.​org. [accessed 10 Sept 2015].
13.
go back to reference Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.CrossRefPubMed Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, O’neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:781–8.CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, O’neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:781–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMed Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363–4.CrossRefPubMed DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363–4.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials
Authors
Chris Del Mar
Tammy C. Hoffmann
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0471-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medicine 1/2015 Go to the issue