Ezgi Tanriver-Ayder, Laura J. Gray, Sarah K. McCann, Ian M. Devonshire, Leigh O’Connor, Zeinab Ammar, Sarah Corke, Mahmoud Warda, Evandro Araújo De-Souza, Paolo Roncon, Edward Christopher, Ryan Cheyne, Daniel Baker, Emily Wheater, Marco Cascella, Savannah A. Lynn, Emmanuel Charbonney, Kamil Laban, Cilene Lino de Oliveira, Julija Baginskaite, Joanne Storey, David Ewart Henshall, Ahmed Nazzal, Privjyot Jheeta, Arianna Rinaldi, Teja Gregorc, Anthony Shek, Jennifer Freymann, Natasha A. Karp, Terence J. Quinn, Victor Jones, Kimberley Elaine Wever, Klara Zsofia Gerlei, Mona Hosh, Victoria Hohendorf, Monica Dingwall, Timm Konold, Katrina Blazek, Sarah Antar, Daniel-Cosmin Marcu, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Paula Grill, Zsanett Bahor, Gillian L. Currie, Fala Cramond, Rosie Moreland, Chris Sena, Jing Liao, Michelle Dohm, Gina Alvino, Alejandra Clark, Gavin Morrison, Catriona MacCallum, Cadi Irvine, Philip Bath, David Howells, Malcolm R. Macleod, Kaitlyn Hair & Emily S. Sena
Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1) (2019)
AbstractBackgroundThe ARRIVE guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.MethodsIn a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.ResultsWe randomised 1689 manuscripts, of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% in the control and intervention groups, respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.
Similar books and articles
Simple decision-tree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before–after study.Diana M. Marshall, Ines Lopes de Sousa & Daniel R. Shanahan - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Reported use of reporting guidelines among JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute authors, editorial outcomes, and reviewer ratings related to adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation.Jeannine Botos - 2018 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 3 (1).
Computer-based instruction for improving student nurses' general numeracy: is it effective? Two randomised trials.Hannah Ainsworth, Mollie Gilchrist, Celia Grant, Catherine Hewitt, Sue Ford, Moira Petrie, Carole J. Torgerson & David J. Torgerson - 2012 - Educational Studies 38 (2):151-163.
Randomisation and resource allocation: a missed opportunity for evaluating health care and social interventions.T. Toroyan - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (5):319-322.
Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study.Mitchell S. V. Elkind, David C. Spencer, Linda M. Selwa, Patrick S. Reynolds, Raymond S. Price, Tracey A. Milligan, MaryAnn Mays, Zachary N. London, Joseph S. Kass, Sheryl R. Haut, Blair Ford, Yeseon Park Moon, Rebeca Aragón-García, Roy E. Strowd & Victoria S. S. Wong - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Evaluating ethics consultation: randomised controlled trial is not the right tool.Y.-Y. Chen & Y.-C. Chen - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (8):594-597.
What We Owe the Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457.
What We Owe The Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-458.
Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. [REVIEW]Mirjam Curno, Sera Tort, Paola De Castro, Thomas F. Babor & Shirin Heidari - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
Why comply? Organizational guidelines offer a safer harbor in the storm.Paul Fiorelli & Ann Marie Tracey - manuscript
Controversial choice of a control intervention in a trial of ventilator therapy in ARDS: standard of care arguments in a randomised controlled trial.H. Mann - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (9):548-553.
A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region.Hazel Fernandez, Andrew Sakko, Zhigang Ma, Sandeep Kamat, Jose Miguel B. Curameng, Stefanie Chuah, Magdalene Y. S. Chu, Katsuhisa Arai & Blair R. Hesp - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015.Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Lotty Hooft, Douglas G. Altman, Henrica C. W. de Vet, David Moher, Les Irwig, Paul P. Glasziou, Constantine A. Gatsonis, David E. Bruns, Johannes B. Reitsma, Jérémie F. Cohen & Daniël A. Korevaar - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
Quantitative evaluation of a clinical intervention aimed at changing prescriber behaviour in response to new guidelines.Sophie Doyon, Mélissa Perreault, Christopher Marquis, Josianne Gauthier, Denis Lebel, Benoit Bailey, Johanne Collin & Jean-François Bussières - 2009 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15 (6):1111-1117.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads