When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration.

BACKGROUND: Due to problems of publication bias and selective reporting, the ICMJE requires prospective registration of all clinical trials with an appropriate registry before the first participant is enrolled. Previous research has shown that not all clinical trials are registered at this time (prospectively). This study investigated the extent and timing of trial registration. The aims were to determine 1) the proportion of clinical trials that were registered prospectively or retrospectively and 2) when retrospective registration took place in relation to submission to the journal in which they were published. METHODS: All clinical trials published in the BMC series in 2013 were identified. All articles that met the study's inclusion criteria were categorised into one of three categories: 1) prospectively registered, 2) retrospectively registered before submission to the journal in which they were published or 3) retrospectively registered after submission to the journal in which they were published. RESULTS: One hundred and eight eligible studies were identified. Of these, 33 (31 %) reported studies that were registered prospectively, 72 reported studies that were registered retrospectively (67 %) and three articles (3 %) did not include a trial registration number. Of the 72 studies that were registered retrospectively, 66 (92 %) were registered before the article was submitted to the journal and six (8 %) were registered after the article was submitted to the journal. CONCLUSIONS: Ten years after the ICMJE requirements for prospective registration of clinical trials this study found that the majority of included clinical trials were registered retrospectively but before submission to a journal for publication. This highlights the need for organisations other than journals, such as research institutions and grant giving bodies, to be more involved in enforcing prospective trial registration.

A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review.

This editorial explains why we are launching Research Integrity and Peer Review, a new open-access journal that will provide a home to research on ethics, reporting, and evaluation of research. We discuss how the idea to launch this journal came about and identify the gaps in knowledge where we would like to encourage more research and interdisciplinary discussion. We are particularly keen to receive submissions presenting actual research that will increase our understanding and suggest potential solutions to issues related to peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics.

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. SETTING: BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. SAMPLE: Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. RESULTS: For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.