Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Mark Creekmore, Ph.D., President NAMI Washtenaw County

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

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

Do plans exist to assess this peer review process and its effect on the research? It seems that part of PCORI's goal is to change the way research is done and presented. (The PCORI process seems to create a parallel process to the journal publication process.) An assessment of the ability to move the standard process (toward access and use by non-elite groups), to improve research and to speed its dissemination should be done.

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

I did not find anything to suggest that research results would be distributed and reviewed by its direct participants, sometimes referred to as "subjects." Lacking access to the actual participants, I would like to see some review by people who might qualify as their representatives. The review conference seems to be an appropriate spot for this to occur. I suspect research might be written differently were researchers to know that this would occur and that those reactions were considered to be valuable.

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

It is not clear to me who has access to the ClinicalTrials.gov site where research results (i.e. "the 500-word (lay) abstract, the 500-word medical abstract, a standalone table, and ancillary information") might be reviewed and what controls might exist on its dissemination prior to journal publication.

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website

It is not clear to me how uniform is the restriction by journals about prior publication. The process here does not seem to suggest that exceptions to the timelines might occur for earlier release when submissions have been made to journals which do not restrict prior publication so strictly.

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:

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.

I presume that other, more direct attempts to speed the peer review and publication process exist. There is no question that the peer review process is more successful - better and speedier - in some journals rather than others.

Upload a Document