Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Sandra Spivey

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Patient

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO

Agree. This makes a lot of sense. If the public is funding the research, the public should be able to access the studies.

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

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report Vital. Very well thought through.

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

I recommend that patient advocacy groups associated with the type of medical condition covered in the research, are involved in producing the patient-oriented results report. I have found that contract writers don't often understand the nuances of how patients interpret such research.

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 Agree

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website Agree

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

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process Agree.

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

Please add any comment about your rating:

I am impressed at the level of thought put into this complex process and how stakeholders have been involved in writing and reviewing the process report.

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: The layered approach in getting the results into the right hands is exceptional.

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

Once this process is established, the investigators and awardee institutions ought to include a discussion of possible pitfalls in their original proposal for funding.

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:

Without peer review, the results can be spun out of control by groups who may have not been advised or included in the peer review.

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

Upload a Document