Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: David Becker

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Patient/Caregiver Advocacy Organization

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO

Youre recommendations are insufficiently state specific. In addition, I don't agree that just experts should be involved in peer review. Experts have a bandwagon bias and engage in group think. IS it no wonder why the cholesterol myth and dangerous substances like VIOXX have been allowed into te public consciousness? Experts are too focused on their own well being and the well being of their peers. They have lost credibility in the eyes of many Americans. The public good would be better served if the peer review process was not left to the designs of experts.

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

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report

Once again, experts have their own biased agenda and their politics have done some damage to the public good. An example is opioids- they promote opioids despite the lack of evidence. Why should we trust experts in the peer review process?

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

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

Please add any comment about your rating:

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

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?

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