 |
 |
I think the point is journals/peer review should emphasize quality first and then focus on results. Everyone knew that long way back, but for some reason it wasn't working, especially in psychology. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Yao, Xiaomei <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > > That is so impressed. I have submitted manuscripts to more than 20 > different journals, and no one journal has “*Research Methodology > Editors”. *Some journal reviewers’ comments did not make any sense from a > methodological perspective. > > > > Thanks, > > > > *Xiaomei Yao* > > *Health Research Methodologist* > > *Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario* > > *Department of Oncology, McMaster University* > > *Tel: (905) 527-4322 <(905)%20527-4322>* > > *Fax: (905) 526-6775 <(905)%20526-6775>* > > *Email: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* > > *https://www.cancercare.on.ca/about/programs/pebc/ > <https://www.cancercare.on.ca/about/programs/pebc/>* > > > > > > *From:* Michael Brown [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:38 AM > *To:* Yao, Xiaomei > *Cc:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Results-free’ peer-review process > > > > However, a number of journals do have teams of trained methodologists - > for example, the Annals of Emergency Medicinel has 6 on the editorial board > and are involved in review of the methods for every primary research > article.(http://www.annemergmed.com/content/editorialboard) > > > > Michael Brown, MD, MSc > Professor and Chair, Emergency Medicine > Michigan State University College of Human Medicine > (cell) 616-490-0920 <(616)%20490-0920> > [log in to unmask] > > > > On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Yao, Xiaomei <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > 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:EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@ > JISCMAIL.AC.UK <[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. > > >