Document Detail


Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23255737     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of structured electronic templates on the quality of manuscript reviews.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five gastrointestinal and genitourinary reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology were included in this investigation. Reviewers were selected and anonymized on the basis of having reviewed one or more manuscripts during period 1 (January 2008 through December 2009). All manuscript reviews were given a review quality score. Reviewers with at least one suboptimal review (i.e., a quality review score of < 3 on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being poor and 4 being an excellent review) were selected for further follow-up. During period 1, the reviewers received minimal guidance regarding the expectations of a high-quality review. During period 2 (August 2010 through August 2011), the reviewers meeting the criteria selected for follow-up received a structured electronic template outlining the review process. Reviews were again scored for review quality and were compared with a paired Student t test.
RESULTS: The mean (± SD) and median review quality scores were 2.07 ± 0.44 and 2.0, respectively, for period 1 and 3.02 ± 0.89 and 3.0, respectively, for period 2. There was a 1-point improvement during period 2 after the introduction of the structured electronic template. Most of the reviews (19/25 [76%; 95% CI, 55%-91%]) improved after introduction of the structured electronic template, whereas only two of 19 worsened. Review scores significantly increased after introduction of the structured electronic templates (mean increase, 0.95 ± 0.92; t = 5.13; p < 0.0001). By specialty, the 13 gastrointestinal reviewers increased their score by 0.39 (p = 0.03), and the 12 genitourinary reviewers increased their score by 1.55 points (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The introduction of a structured electronic template significantly improved the quality of manuscript reviews submitted.
Authors:
Arumugam Rajesh; Gretchen Cloud; Mukesh G Harisinghani
Related Documents :
16326277 - Unusually long survival in a case of medullomyoblastoma.
12217677 - Cholesterol granuloma in the middle fossa presenting 30 years after surgery for chronic...
12552307 - Childhood gonorrhoea in auckland.
8658117 - Overwhelming pneumoccoccal sepsis in two patients splenectomised more than ten years pr...
6752577 - Clinico-pathological study of so-called immune zones in leprosy.
3280107 - Thoracic outlet syndrome with congenital pseudarthrosis of the clavicle: treatment by b...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  AJR. American journal of roentgenology     Volume:  200     ISSN:  1546-3141     ISO Abbreviation:  AJR Am J Roentgenol     Publication Date:  2013 Jan 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-12-20     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7708173     Medline TA:  AJR Am J Roentgenol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  20-3     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Rd, Leicester, Leicestershire LE5 4PW, United Kingdom.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  CT perfusion in oncologic imaging: a useful tool?
Next Document:  Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions.