Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. D...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Evan Mayo-Wilson, Meredith L. Phillips, Avonne E. Connor, Kelly J. Vander Ley, Kevin Naaman, Mark Helfand
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Peer review Spin Reporting bias Research funding Patient centered outcomes research institute (PCORI) Interventions General Works A
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ea798983393c4588b1d795cdb22818e4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ea798983393c4588b1d795cdb22818e4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ea798983393c4588b1d795cdb22818e42021-12-05T12:19:12ZPeer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports10.1186/s41073-021-00119-12058-8615https://doaj.org/article/ea798983393c4588b1d795cdb22818e42021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1https://doaj.org/toc/2058-8615Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Methods Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. Results We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Discussion Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.Evan Mayo-WilsonMeredith L. PhillipsAvonne E. ConnorKelly J. Vander LeyKevin NaamanMark HelfandBMCarticlePeer reviewSpinReporting biasResearch fundingPatient centered outcomes research institute (PCORI)InterventionsGeneral WorksAENResearch Integrity and Peer Review, Vol 6, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Peer review Spin Reporting bias Research funding Patient centered outcomes research institute (PCORI) Interventions General Works A
spellingShingle	Peer review Spin Reporting bias Research funding Patient centered outcomes research institute (PCORI) Interventions General Works A Evan Mayo-Wilson Meredith L. Phillips Avonne E. Connor Kelly J. Vander Ley Kevin Naaman Mark Helfand Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports
description	Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Methods Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. Results We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Discussion Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.
format	article
author	Evan Mayo-Wilson Meredith L. Phillips Avonne E. Connor Kelly J. Vander Ley Kevin Naaman Mark Helfand
author_facet	Evan Mayo-Wilson Meredith L. Phillips Avonne E. Connor Kelly J. Vander Ley Kevin Naaman Mark Helfand
author_sort	Evan Mayo-Wilson
title	Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports
title_short	Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports
title_full	Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports
title_fullStr	Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports
title_full_unstemmed	Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports
title_sort	peer review reduces spin in pcori research reports
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/ea798983393c4588b1d795cdb22818e4
work_keys_str_mv	AT evanmayowilson peerreviewreducesspininpcoriresearchreports AT meredithlphillips peerreviewreducesspininpcoriresearchreports AT avonneeconnor peerreviewreducesspininpcoriresearchreports AT kellyjvanderley peerreviewreducesspininpcoriresearchreports AT kevinnaaman peerreviewreducesspininpcoriresearchreports AT markhelfand peerreviewreducesspininpcoriresearchreports
_version_	1718372049718607872

Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

Ejemplares similares