Scientific Document Review at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: The CLEAR Approach

Scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish an average of 50 peer-reviewed articles per week,1 in addition to numerous other widely disseminated materials. Even non-subject matter reviewers should be able to assess whether the authors are clearly describing study me...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:American journal of public health (1971) Ročník 107; číslo 6; s. 858 - 859
Hlavní autoři: Iskander, John K., Calugar, Angela, Peavy, Richard D., Sowell, Anne
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States American Public Health Association 01.06.2017
Témata:
AJPH s
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Clinical trials
Communication
Criteria
Diagnostic systems
Disease control
Disease prevention
Documentation - methods
Ebola virus
Editorials
Emergency preparedness
Emergency response
Ethics
Health care policy
Health Professionals
Humans
Information dissemination
Information systems
Laboratory tests
Prevention
Public health
Public Health Practice
Publications - standards
Registration
Review boards
Risk analysis
Risk factors
Science
Scientists
United States
Writing/Reviewing/Publishing
United States
Atlanta Georgia
United States > US
ISSN:0090-0036, 1541-0048, 1541-0048
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish an average of 50 peer-reviewed articles per week,1 in addition to numerous other widely disseminated materials. Even non-subject matter reviewers should be able to assess whether the authors are clearly describing study methods, including case definitions and inclusion or exclusion criteria, and whether inferences drawn are reasonable and discussion of contradictory or inconsistent results is adequate. 3.Ethics considerations include not only acknowledgment of institutional review board or other human participant protection review, but also whether readers may perceive broader ethical concerns. Relevance may refer to increased awareness or recommended actions related to emerging conditions and their risk factors, use of new diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests, or reporting of specific conditions to public health authorities. Any MMWR content considered to be human participant research must describe review by the institutional review board and, when appropriate, clinical trial registration (E). Because articles published in MMWR represent agency policy,4 reviewers assess whether policy-related statements are consistent with CDC policy or recommendations (A). During public health emergency responses, when rapid review and dissemination of evolving information are critical, this system is especially valuable.6 Best practices for reviewers include providing comments that are specific and actionable and making clear the distinction between mandatory (level 1) and voluntary (levels 2 and 3) comments. The CLEAR framework, which can be applied to both internal and peer review processes conducted in a variety of public health settings, has the potential to increase the speed with...
Bibliografie:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Commentary-1
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Editorial-2
ObjectType-Article-3
J. K. Iskander conceptualized and drafted the editorial. J. K. Iskander, A. Calugar, and R. D. Peavy performed the underlying work and critically revised the editorial for important intellectual content. A. Sowell provided important content revisions and critical review of the work.
CONTRIBUTORS
ISSN:0090-0036
1541-0048
1541-0048
DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303778