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

Fax: (905) 526-6775

Email: [log in to unmask]

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: EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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
[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] On Behalf Of Anoop Balachandran
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:11 AM
To: EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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.