Dataset Information

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although medical publications are frequently used as the source of information, the prevalence of errata remains unclear. The objective of this study was to examine peer-review and publication processes of medical journals as well as to determine the occurrence of reported errata in medical journals and timeliness in identifying and correcting errata.

Methods

Five medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of American Medical Association, and Lancet, were evaluated. The characteristics of these journals were obtained from editors' survey. All these journals report errata noted in their prior publications. We retrospectively analyzed all errata reported from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012. The mean number of reported errata per issue, the most common errata, and the mean time to report errata were calculated.

Results

The journals had high impact factors (14-51), received 3,200 to more than 15,000 submissions in 2012, and utilized two or more external reviewers and usually two or more editors for any accepted articles. All the journals edited the accepted articles, including references, figures, and tables for style. A mean of 1.3 articles with ?1 errata was reported per issue (a total of 306 articles with errata in 226 issues). Errata in author's information, numeric errata, and errata in the figures and tables were the most common errata. The mean time to report the errata was 122 days.

Conclusion

The high-impact journals, with extensive pre-publication review, reported relatively few errata per issue. The delay in reporting errata needs further exploration.

SUBMITTER: Bhatt VR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4246137 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012.

Bhatt Vijaya R VR Aryal Madan R MR Panta Sujana S Mosalpuria Kailash K Armitage James O JO

Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives 20141125 5

<h4>Background</h4>Although medical publications are frequently used as the source of information, the prevalence of errata remains unclear. The objective of this study was to examine peer-review and publication processes of medical journals as well as to determine the occurrence of reported errata in medical journals and timeliness in identifying and correcting errata.<h4>Methods</h4>Five medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Jo ...[more]

PMID: 25432653

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.MethodsIn June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.ResultsIn total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.ConclusionsThe completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess how often stratified randomisation is used, whether analysis adjusted for all balancing variables, and whether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, and to reanalyse a previously reported trial to assess the impact of ignoring balancing factors in the analysis.DesignReview of published trials and reanalysis of a previously reported trial.SettingFour leading general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) and the second Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST2).Participants258 trials published in 2010 in the four journals. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-randomised, single arm, and phase I or II trials were excluded, as were trials reporting secondary analyses, interim analyses, or results that had been previously published in 2010.Main outcome measuresWhether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, how often balanced randomisation was used, and whether balancing factors were adjusted for in the analysis.ResultsReanalysis of MIST2 showed that an unadjusted analysis led to larger P values and a loss of power. The review of published trials showed that balanced randomisation was common, with 163 trials (63%) using at least one balancing variable. The most common methods of balancing were stratified permuted blocks (n=85) and minimisation (n=27). The method of randomisation was unclear in 37% of trials. Most trials that balanced on centre or prognostic factors were not adequately analysed; only 26% of trials adjusted for all balancing factors in their primary analysis. Trials that did not adjust for balancing factors in their analysis were less likely to show a statistically significant result (unadjusted 57% v adjusted 78%, P=0.02).ConclusionBalancing on centre or prognostic factors is common in trials but often poorly described, and the implications of balancing are poorly understood. Trialists should adjust their primary analysis for balancing factors to obtain correct P values and confidence intervals and to avoid an unnecessary loss in power.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated.ResultsIn this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (<200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]).Conclusion and relevanceIn this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.

Dataset Information

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets