An interventional study of Community Reviewers in Peer Review, Research, sponsored by MetroHealth Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-09-29.
Sponsored by MetroHealth Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community members in other phases of the research process suggests that they provide distinct and useful expertise. Such involvement may lead to enhanced understanding of community priorities, refinement of study designs to minimize participant burden, and increased recruitment and retention of subjects.
The investigators propose a randomized controlled trial involving 24 community members who will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. A total of 568 manuscripts submitted to 2 medical journals will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and by scientific reviewers while control manuscripts will be reviewed only by scientific reviewers. Journal editorial teams will use all reviews to help them make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.
Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community members in other phases of the research process suggests that they provide distinct and useful expertise. Such involvement may lead to enhanced understanding of community priorities, refinement of study designs to minimize participant burden, and increased recruitment and retention of subjects. In general, community involvement in research is more common in the earlier phases of the research process (selection of research question and development of a study protocol) and less common in later phases (dissemination and implementation of findings). In the investigators' previous work, they conducted a pilot study that recruited and trained community members to review medical journal manuscripts. They found that community reviewers were much more likely than scientific reviewers to comment on i) the relevance of the study to patients and communities, ii) the diversity and complexity of the study participants, iii) the social context of the condition studied, and iv) barriers to implementation of study findings by patients and communities.
The investigators now propose a randomized controlled trial involving 24 community members who will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. A total of 568 manuscripts submitted to 2 medical journals will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and by scientific reviewers while control manuscripts will be reviewed only by scientific reviewers. Community reviewers will follow each journal's instructions regarding electronic access to manuscripts, use of drop-down menus and free-text boxes to address specific aspects of the review, and completion within the time frame specified by the journal. Journal editorial teams will use all reviews to help them make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. Quantitative and qualitative analyses will i) compare the content of community and scientific reviews, ii) determine the usefulness of community reviews to journal editors, and iii) explore how community reviewer comments are integrated into published articles.
The proposed project is a novel approach to engaging health disparity populations and other community members in dissemination of research findings. This approach has the potential to provide new and distinct perspectives, to increase the quality and relevance of articles published in medical journals, and to enhance dissemination and implementation of research findings.
Primary Aim A. To compare community member reviews with those of scientific reviewers.
Hypothesis: Compared to scientific reviewers, community reviewers will be more likely to comment on relevance to patients and communities, subject diversity, social context, and implementation barriers.
Primary Aim B. To determine the usefulness of community member reviews to editors.
Hypothesis: Editors will report utilizing community reviewer comments in manuscript decisions.
Secondary Aim C. To explore how community reviews are integrated into published articles.
Hypothesis: Community perspectives that were not present in manuscripts at the time of original submission will subsequently be discernible in published articles.
MetroHealth Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 103 studies on the registry; 19 are open to participants now.
Of its 12 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 7 (58%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Community Reviewer Eligibility:
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Manuscript Eligibility:
Inclusion Criteria:
24 community members will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. Approximately 284 manuscripts will be randomized into the intervention group over the duration of the study. Manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and scientific reviewers.
Other: Community Reviewers
Approximately 284 manuscripts will be randomized into the control group over the duration of the study. Manuscripts will be reviewed by multiple scientific reviewers. Community reviewers will not be involved in reviewing these manuscripts.
Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a trained community member and scientific reviewers. Community reviewers will follow each journal's instructions regarding electronic access to manuscripts, use of drop-down menus and free-text boxes to address specific aspects of the review, and completion within the time frame specified by the journal.The journal editorial team will use all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.
To compare community member reviews with those of scientific reviewers.
The investigators will examine community and scientific reviewer ratings of intervention group manuscripts, including overall recommendations and ratings of specific aspects of the manuscripts. The overall recommendation categories will be converted into a 4 point Likert scale and combine data across journals.
Time frame: 5 years
To determine the usefulness of community member reviews to editors.
The investigators will examine editor ratings of the usefulness of intervention group manuscript reviews submitted by community and scientific reviewers. The investigators will use qualitative analyses to identify specific themes present in editors' responses to open-ended questions about the usefulness of community reviews.
Time frame: 5 years
To explore how community reviews are integrated into published articles.
The investigators will examine how specific community reviewer comments are addressed by authors. They will also examine how often community and patient perspectives are present in published articles.
Time frame: 5 years
Plan to share: No
Ran from Jun 2018 to primary completion in Nov 2021, 41 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.