Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). RESULTS: The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal's usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88-1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82-89] versus 20% [16-24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44-77] versus 11% [3-26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57-65] versus 77% [74-81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67-86] versus 98% [92-100]. CONCLUSIONS: Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical.Trials.gov NCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Decoding emotions in expressive music performances: A multi-lab replication and extension study.

With over 560 citations reported on Google Scholar by April 2018, a publication by Juslin and Gabrielsson (1996) presented evidence supporting performers' abilities to communicate, with high accuracy, their intended emotional expressions in music to listeners. Though there have been related studies published on this topic, there has yet to be a direct replication of this paper. A replication is warranted given the paper's influence in the field and the implications of its results. The present experiment joins the recent replication effort by producing a five-lab replication using the original methodology. Expressive performances of seven emotions (e.g. happy, sad, angry, etc.) by professional musicians were recorded using the same three melodies from the original study. Participants (N = 319) were presented with recordings and rated how well each emotion matched the emotional quality using a 0-10 scale. The same instruments from the original study (i.e. violin, voice, and flute) were used, with the addition of piano. In an effort to increase the accessibility of the experiment and allow for a more ecologically-valid environment, the recordings were presented using an internet-based survey platform. As an extension to the original study, this experiment investigated how musicality, emotional intelligence, and emotional contagion might explain individual differences in the decoding process. Results found overall high decoding accuracy (57%) when using emotion ratings aggregated for the sample of participants, similar to the method of analysis from the original study. However, when decoding accuracy was scored for each participant individually the average accuracy was much lower (31%). Unlike in the original study, the voice was found to be the most expressive instrument. Generalised Linear Mixed Effects Regression modelling revealed that musical training and emotional engagement with music positively influences emotion decoding accuracy.

Eyebrow movements and vocal pitch height: evidence consistent with an ethological signal.

When asked to sing a high pitch, people produce a facial expression that is judged more friendly compared with singing a low pitch [Huron et al. (2009). Empirical Musicology Rev. 4(3), 93-100]. This effect was observed even when judges viewed only the face above the tip of the nose, and implies a relationship between pitch height and eyebrow height. In the current study, we examine the reverse relationship. Thirty-one participants were asked to read aloud standard texts while holding their eyebrows in a raised, neutral, or lowered position. Average F0 was found to correlate positively with eyebrow position, with higher vocal pitch associated with higher eyebrow placement. However, manipulating eyebrow placement produces a considerably smaller effect (on pitch) compared with the effect of manipulating pitch (on eyebrows). Results are discussed from the perspective of ethological signals [Lorenz (1939). Zool. Anz. 12, 69-102].

Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Scholarly journals play a key role in the dissemination of research findings. However, little focus is given to the process of establishing new, credible journals and the obstacles faced in achieving this. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing recommendations for starting a biomedical scholarly journal. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases: OVID Medline + Medline in Process, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 14, 2022. A related grey literature search was conducted on March 19, 2022. Eligible sources were those published in English in any year, of any format, and that described guidance for starting a biomedical journal. Titles and abstracts of obtained sources were screened. We extracted descriptive characteristics including author name, year and country of publication, journal name, and source type, and any recommendations from the included sources discussing guidance for starting a biomedical journal. These recommendations were categorized and thematically grouped. RESULTS: A total of 5626 unique sources were obtained. Thirty-three sources met our inclusion criteria. Most sources were blog posts (10/33; 30.30%), and only 10 sources were supported by evidence. We extracted 51 unique recommendations from these 33 sources, which we thematically classified into nine themes which were: journal operations, editorial review processes, peer review processes, open access publishing, copyediting/typesetting, production, archiving/indexing/metrics, marketing/promotion, and funding. CONCLUSIONS: There is little formal guidance regarding how to start a scholarly journal. The development of an evidence-based guideline may help uphold scholarly publishing quality, provide insight into obstacles new journals will face, and equip novice publishers with the tools to meet best practices.

A different kind of 'normal'.

Another month, another editorial. That said, this month, the more observant among you will have noticed something a little different - I have written not one, but two editorials! The second, written in Japanese, is for the upcoming World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) congress in Yokohama, Japan, which presents a valuable opportunity for all those involved in wound care from around the world to meet and exchange ideas face-to-face.

For the write reason.

In between editing the JWC this month, I have been preparing to give a talk on writing for publication, so this topic that has been very much on my mind recently. One interesting question keeps coming up, and I feel it is quite possibly the most important place to begin. Simply put: why do we publish?