Dataset Information

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology.

Methods

In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform "eSurveyCreator". The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance.

Results

A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal's articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses.

Conclusion

The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

SUBMITTER: Kasmann L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8292256 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement.DesignA survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres.SettingAll cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency.ParticipantsA delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team.Outcome measuresRated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes.Results14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10).ConclusionsRadiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.

Project description:PurposeMissing data are a significant problem in clinical trials, particularly for quality of life (QOL), which cannot be obtained retrospectively. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an electronic web-based strategy for QOL data collection in a cooperative group radiation oncology trial setting.Methods and materialsRadiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0828 was a prospective National Cancer Institute cooperative group companion study of RTOG-0415, a randomized study of conventional versus hypofractionated radiation. Forty-nine English-speaking patients with favorable risk prostate cancer who enrolled on RTOG-0415 consented to using web-based technology for completing QOL. In RTOG-0415, using paper forms, the 6-month QOL compliance rate was 52%. The purpose of RTOG-0828 was to test the feasibility of a web-based strategy with the goal of increasing the 6-month QOL completion rate by 25% (from 52% to 77%) for a relative improvement of ~50%. The web-based tool used in this study was VisionTree Optimal Care (VTOC; VisionTree Software, Inc, San Diego, CA), a Health-Insurance-Portability-Accountability-Act secure, online technology that allows real-time tracking and e-mail reminders. The primary endpoint was the 6-month compliance rate for the validated QOL instrument, Expanded Prostate Index Composite.ResultsThe QOL completion rate at baseline was 98%. Compared with the prior 52% QOL completion rate at 6 months using paper forms, the QOL web-based completion rate at 6 months was 90% (2-sided P value < .001). At 12 months, the EPIC completion rate was 82% (compared with 36% using paper forms).ConclusionsThis RTOG study suggests that a web-based strategy to collect QOL appears to be feasible in the cooperative group radiation oncology trial setting and is associated with an increase in the 6-month QOL compliance rate compared with the prior method of using paper forms. The RTOG plans to further test this strategy in a head-and-neck cancer trial across all participating RTOG sites.

Project description:Purpose and objectiveTo develop expert consensus statements on multiparametric dose prescriptions for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) aligning with ICRU report 91. These statements serve as a foundational step towards harmonizing current SBRT practices and refining dose prescription and documentation requirements for clinical trial designs.Materials and methodsBased on the results of a literature review by the working group, a two-tier Delphi consensus process was conducted among 24 physicians and physics experts from three European countries. The degree of consensus was predefined for overarching (OA) and organ-specific (OS) statements (≥ 80%, 60-79%, < 60% for high, intermediate, and poor consensus, respectively). Post-first round statements were refined in a live discussion for the second round of the Delphi process.ResultsExperts consented on a total of 14 OA and 17 OS statements regarding SBRT of primary and secondary lung, liver, pancreatic, adrenal, and kidney tumors regarding dose prescription, target coverage, and organ at risk dose limitations. Degree of consent was ≥ 80% in 79% and 41% of OA and OS statements, respectively, with higher consensus for lung compared to the upper abdomen. In round 2, the degree of consent was ≥ 80 to 100% for OA and 88% in OS statements. No consensus was reached for dose escalation to liver metastases after chemotherapy (47%) or single-fraction SBRT for kidney primaries (13%). In round 2, no statement had 60-79% consensus.ConclusionIn 29 of 31 statements a high consensus was achieved after a two-tier Delphi process and one statement (kidney) was clearly refused. The Delphi process was able to achieve a high degree of consensus for SBRT dose prescription. In summary, clear recommendations for both OA and OS could be defined. This contributes significantly to harmonization of SBRT practice and facilitates dose prescription and reporting in clinical trials investigating SBRT.