Peer Literature Review Journal

1316 Words6 Pages
Methods To evaluate corresponding authors’ attitudes towards the involvement of PMWs in the development of peer-reviewed publications, we conducted a short online survey to assess their opinions. Selection of journals and potential authors We identified potential corresponding authors of published peer-reviewed articles to survey through the following steps: 1) identification of the journals; 2) search and selection of the articles; 3) review of each article and selection of the authors. Identification of the journals We extracted a listing of journal names classified by therapy area, disease, Impact Factor (IF), and circulation rate using Journal Selector as a search tool (Table 1). Journal Selector is the industry’s leading database of…show more content…
Review of each article and selection of the authors We reviewed the newly defined article database to assess if each article respected the selected criteria. Therefore, we included only articles on randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). We excluded systematic reviews and post-hoc analysis. Most selected articles (70%; 209/298) were registered on the international or on the European EudraCT clinical trials databases. A few articles of corresponding authors of the Asia-Pacific regions were registered in local database, such as the ANZCTR, the online registry of clinical trials being undertaken in Australia and New Zealand. Over one-third (38%; 113/298) of the selected RCTs articles were pharmaceutical funded. Because several corresponding authors were authors of more than one articles published in our selected peer-reviewed journals, we identified a total of 240 corresponding authors to survey (Table 2). We estimated that this samples size of corresponding authors was sufficient to test our hypothesis and reach a response rate (RR) of 10-15%. Development of survey We developed a survey of 10 questions using SurveyMonkey, an online survey designer that enables to create surveys quickly and easily ( We deliberately kept the number of questions low to improve RR. Our 10 questions included 4 multiple choice, 3 rating, and 3 open-ended questions (Appendix
Get Access