Publications by authors named "ML Callaham"
Objective: Although current ethical standards mandate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure by authors of peer-reviewed publications, it is unknown whether disclosure affects a manuscript's fate. Our objective was to identify associations between author COI disclosure and editorial decision to publish.
Methods: We performed a cross-sectional observational study of editorial decisions for original research and brief research report manuscripts submitted to between June 2014 and January 2018 using data from the journal's editorial decision software and data from a prior study that characterized author COI for the same manuscripts.
Objective: To assess the effect of disclosing authors' conflict of interest declarations to peer reviewers at a medical journal.
Design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Manuscript review process at the PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers (n=838) who reviewed manuscripts submitted between 2 June 2014 and 23 January 2018 inclusive (n=1480 manuscripts).
Background: Open Payments is a United States federal program mandating reporting of medical industry payments to physicians, increasing transparency of physician conflicts of interest (COI). Study objectives were to assess industry payments to physician-editors, and to compare their financial COI rate to all physicians within the specialty.
Methods And Findings: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, reviewing Open Payments from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016.
Background: Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) is intended to help reviewers assess the impact of potential bias on the validity of research results; however, there have been no empiric assessments of how reviewers understand and use disclosures in article evaluation. We investigate reviewers' perceptions of potential bias introduced by particular author disclosures, and whether reviewer characteristics are associated with a greater likelihood of perceiving bias.
Methodology/principal Findings: Of the 911 active reviewers from the Annals of Emergency Medicine, 410 were randomly selected and invited to complete our web-based, 3-part survey.
Objective: To characterize medical editors by determining their demographics, training, potential sources of conflict of interest (COI), and familiarity with ethical standards.
Study Design And Setting: We selected editors of clinical medical journals with the highest annual citation rates. One hundred eighty-three editors were electronically surveyed (response rate, 52%) on demographics and experiences with editorial training, publication ethics, industry, and scientific publication organizations.
Study Objective: Before starting this study, Annals of Emergency Medicine had a large and unwieldy reviewer pool that demonstrated substantial variability in quality and reliability. We hypothesize that a tiered reviewer stratification system might enable our journal editors to target the bulk of their review invitations to our better reviewers and thus improve our efficiency.
Methods: In 2003, we instituted a 3-tiered hierarchic classification for our reviewers and stratified them within these categories according to predefined criteria for reviewer quality and reliability.
Study Objective: The rise in emergency department (ED) use in the United States is frequently attributed to increased visits by the uninsured. We determine whether insurance status is associated with the increase in ED visits.
Methods: Using the national Community Tracking Study Household Surveys from 1996 to 1997, 1998 to 1999, 2000 to 2001, and 2003 to 2004, we determined for each period the proportion of reported adult ED visits according to insurance status, family income, usual source of care, health status, and outpatient (non-ED) visits.
Background: Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF