Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) logoLink to British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)
. 1983 May 7;286(6376):1485–1488. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1485

Is the statistical assessment of papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal" effective?

M J Gardner, D G Altman, D R Jones, D Machin
PMCID: PMC1547672  PMID: 6405855

Abstract

A study was performed to judge the effectiveness of the statistical assessment scheme for papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal." Statistical criticism of the content of 200 submitted papers which had already been seen by a subject referee led directly or indirectly to 73 (37%) being rejected for publication. In most cases (53 out of 73) serious problems requiring more than minor revision were identified. A comparison of reports on subsequently unpublished and published papers showed that adverse statistical assessments--suggesting major problems--were more common in the papers that were not accepted for publication. Moderate, or less, revision was recommended for 63% of published papers but 39% of the remainder. A checklist of relevant questions was used in making a detailed comparison of 12 published papers, six of which had been statistically assessed and six of which had not. This comparison yielded little evidence that the papers that had been assessed were statistically more acceptable than those that had not been assessed but re-emphasised the subjectivity of refereeing and assessment.

Full text

PDF
1485

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman D. G. Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med. 1982 Jan-Mar;1(1):59–71. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780010109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. DerSimonian R., Charette L. J., McPeek B., Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1982 Jun 3;306(22):1332–1337. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198206033062204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Glantz S. A. Biostatistics: how to detect, correct and prevent errors in the medical literature. Circulation. 1980 Jan;61(1):1–7. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.61.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lionel N. D., Herxheimer A. Assessing reports of therapeutic trials. Br Med J. 1970 Sep 12;3(5723):637–640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5723.637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lock S. Peer review weighed in the balance. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982 Oct 30;285(6350):1224–1226. doi: 10.1136/bmj.285.6350.1224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rao N. S., Seth A. K., Murthy N. S., Marwah S. M. Some statistical deficiencies in medical research in India. Indian J Med Res. 1977 Oct;66(4):696–703. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sackett D. L. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51–63. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(79)90012-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Schor S., Karten I. Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. JAMA. 1966 Mar 28;195(13):1123–1128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Smith R. Conference Report: Steaming up windows and refereeing medical papers. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982 Oct 30;285(6350):1259–1261. doi: 10.1136/bmj.285.6350.1259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. White S. J. Statistical errors in papers in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Oct;135:336–342. doi: 10.1192/bjp.135.4.336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Medical Journal (Clinical research ed.) are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES