• AJR Am J Roentgenol · Jan 2013

    Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.

    • Arumugam Rajesh, Gretchen Cloud, and Mukesh G Harisinghani.
    • Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Rd, Leicester, Leicestershire LE5 4PW, United Kingdom. arajesh27@hotmail.com
    • AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan 1; 200 (1): 20-3.

    ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of structured electronic templates on the quality of manuscript reviews.Materials And MethodsTwenty-five gastrointestinal and genitourinary reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology were included in this investigation. Reviewers were selected and anonymized on the basis of having reviewed one or more manuscripts during period 1 (January 2008 through December 2009). All manuscript reviews were given a review quality score. Reviewers with at least one suboptimal review (i.e., a quality review score of < 3 on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being poor and 4 being an excellent review) were selected for further follow-up. During period 1, the reviewers received minimal guidance regarding the expectations of a high-quality review. During period 2 (August 2010 through August 2011), the reviewers meeting the criteria selected for follow-up received a structured electronic template outlining the review process. Reviews were again scored for review quality and were compared with a paired Student t test.ResultsThe mean (± SD) and median review quality scores were 2.07 ± 0.44 and 2.0, respectively, for period 1 and 3.02 ± 0.89 and 3.0, respectively, for period 2. There was a 1-point improvement during period 2 after the introduction of the structured electronic template. Most of the reviews (19/25 [76%; 95% CI, 55%-91%]) improved after introduction of the structured electronic template, whereas only two of 19 worsened. Review scores significantly increased after introduction of the structured electronic templates (mean increase, 0.95 ± 0.92; t = 5.13; p < 0.0001). By specialty, the 13 gastrointestinal reviewers increased their score by 0.39 (p = 0.03), and the 12 genitourinary reviewers increased their score by 1.55 points (p < 0.0001).ConclusionThe introduction of a structured electronic template significantly improved the quality of manuscript reviews submitted.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…