It sounds very interesting. It may be the time for journal editors to recruit some methodologists to their Editorial Boards because so far most journal Editorial Board members and/or journal reviewers don’t have a good methodological training.
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anoop Balachandran
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Results-free’ peer-review process
This will be very interesting and makes a lot of sense! Focus on quality, and then worry about results.
http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7
Abstract
The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.
|