Pride and prejudice - What can we learn from peer review?

Objectives: Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors unrelated to research quality that may influence peer review reports, and assessed the possibility that sub-types of reviewers exist. Our findings could potentially improve the peer review process.Methods: We evaluated the harshness, constructiveness and positiveness in 596 reviews from journals with open peer review, plus 46 reviews from colleagues' anonymously reviewed manuscripts. We considered possible influencing factors, such as number of authors and seasonal trends, on the content of the review. Finally, using machine-learning we identified latent types of reviewer with differing characteristics.Results: Reviews provided during a northern-hemisphere winter were significantly harsher, suggesting a seasonal effect on language. Reviews for articles in journals with an open peer review policy were significantly less harsh than those with an anonymous review process. Further, we identified three types of reviewers: nurturing, begrudged, and blasé.Conclusion: Nurturing reviews were in a minority and our findings suggest that more widespread open peer reviewing could improve the educational value of peer review, increase the constructive criticism that encourages researchers, and reduce pride and prejudice in editorial processes.

The challenges in data integration - heterogeneity and complexity in clinical trials and patient registries of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Individual clinical trials and cohort studies are a useful source of data, often under-utilised once a study has ended. Pooling data from multiple sources could increase sample sizes and allow for further investigation of treatment effects; even if the original trial did not meet its primary goals. Through the MASTERPLANS (MAximizing Sle ThERapeutic PotentiaL by Application of Novel and Stratified approaches) national consortium, focused on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), we have gained valuable real-world experiences in aligning, harmonising and combining data from multiple studies and trials, specifically where standards for data capture, representation and documentation, were not used or were unavailable. This was not without challenges arising both from the inherent complexity of the disease and from differences in the way data were captured and represented across different studies. MAIN BODY: Data were, unavoidably, aligned by hand, matching up equivalent or similar patient variables across the different studies. Heterogeneity-related issues were tackled and data were cleaned, organised and combined, resulting in a single large dataset ready for analysis. Overcoming these hurdles, often seen in large-scale data harmonization and integration endeavours of legacy datasets, was made possible within a realistic timescale and limited resource by focusing on specific research questions driven by the aims of MASTERPLANS. Here we describe our experiences tackling the complexities in the integration of large, diverse datasets, and the lessons learned. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonising data across studies can be complex, and time and resource consuming. The work carried out here highlights the importance of using standards for data capture, recording, and representation, to facilitate both the integration of large datasets and comparison between studies. Where standards are not implemented at the source harmonisation is still possible by taking a flexible approach, with systematic preparation, and a focus on specific research questions.

Probabilistic Approaches to Overcome Content Heterogeneity in Data Integration: A Study Case in Systematic Lupus Erythematosus.

Integrating data from different sources into homogeneous dataset increases the opportunities to study human health. However, disparate data collections are often heterogeneous, which complicates their integration. In this paper, we focus on the issue of content heterogeneity in data integration. Traditional approaches for resolving content heterogeneity map all source datasets to a common data model that includes only shared data items, and thus omit all items that vary between datasets. Based on an example of three datasets in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, we describe and experimentally evaluate a probabilistic data integration approach which propagates the uncertainty resulting from content heterogeneity into statistical inference, avoiding the need to map to a common data model.

Counterphase modulation photometry: comparison of two instruments.

The ratio of long-wavelength to medium-wavelength sensitive cones varies significantly among people. In order to investigate the possible effect of this variation in large numbers of participants, a quick and efficient method to estimate the ratio is required. The OSCAR test has been utilized previously for this purpose, but it is no longer available commercially. Having access to one of the few remaining OSCAR instruments, we compared the observers' mean settings to those obtained with the Medmont C100, a newer but apparently similar device. We also obtained Rayleigh matches for each participant. One hundred volunteers took part in the study. Settings on the OSCAR test were highly correlated with those on the Medmont C100. Both tests appeared to be influenced not only by L∶M cone ratios but also by the spectral positions of the cone photopigments, since anomaloscope midmatch points accounted for a significant proportion of the variance. We conclude that the Medmont C100 can be used as a suitable replacement for the OSCAR test and has a role in the rapid estimation of L∶M cone ratios.