Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: james travis

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Patient

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO Excellent

Production of a draft final report, scientific abstract, and standalone results table Would this also stand as a progress report for further funding?

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report Excellent

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

This should have been done by NIH years ago. When I was a member of a study section in the 1980s this was mentioned but never followed up by administrative staff. If the PRs institution didn't push nothing much was done to show the public how their tax money was being spent.

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 Great

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

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

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process

This must be variable since each press release usually is in concert with publication of findings and can't be set in concrete.

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

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 Agree

Please add any comment about your rating: mentioned above

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

Upload a Document