Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Lawrence Scahill

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Researcher

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO Agree

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

The concern for many researchers would be the timeline. It often takes six months to a year to get findings published in a journal. High profile journals may not accept papers - if the data have been released prior to publication.

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report

It was not clear to me who would review the draft report. What is the results of the review?

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

The issue is when - i.e., how son after completing the study? If on clinicaltrials.gov - why duplicate? If not a clinical trial - then it makes sense.

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

and the other way around. The abstract on PCORI provides link to clinicaltrials.gov.

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website If on clinicaltrials.gov - why duplicate?

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

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process This is critical - give investigators time to submit the paper.

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 Somewhat 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. In clinical trials - this is a potential problem.

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? Somewhat Disagree

Please add any comment about your rating: I remain unconvinced about the need/purpose of the "peer review."

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

Upload a Document