Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Arthur Weinstein, MD

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Researcher

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO

Production of a draft final report, scientific abstract, and standalone results table

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report

Providing a version of the results summary that will be useful and comprehensible for use by patients and the general public

Submission of results table to ClinicalTrials.gov and/or other sites as appropriate, with a link to the abstract and standalone results table on PCORI’s website

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website

I attended yesterday's Board of Governor's meeting and I am very pleased that you now have added a section that posting the full final report will await notice of acceptance of publication by a peer-reviewed journal. It would be comforting to know that the journals, especially New England Journal of Medicine, will accept the posting of a 500 word abstract and a standalone table, prior to publication.

Awardee institution notification to PCORI of submission to journals and subsequent publication of papers resulting from funded projects

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process

Please rate how well the proposal meets PCORI’s obligations under its authorizing legislation Somewhat Well

Please add any comment about your rating:

Since there is no guarantee that the first journal to which the manuscript is submitted will accept it, adherence to flexible timelines rather than rigid timelines should be considered.

Please rate how well the proposal provides a clear understanding of the peer review and public release process Very Clear

Please add any comment about your rating:

Please comment on the proposal’s feasibility given any competing obligations that awardee institutions funded by PCORI, or their investigators, may face.

The law requires that PCORI both conduct peer review of our funded primary research and make it available publicly within a specific timeframe. We propose to conduct peer review first, then post the results, so they can benefit from the review process. Do you agree or disagree with the sequencing of this process? Strongly Agree

Please add any comment about your rating:

Please provide any additional comments that you have not already provided about any aspect of this proposal.

Upload a Document