02433nas a2200397   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001200043653001100055653002400066653001100090653001400101653001100115653001700126653001500143653002600158653001600184653001500200653002000215653003100235653001900266653002200285653001200307100001900319700001600338700001900354700001600373700002300389700001700412700002000429245013100449300001200580490000700592520142200599022001402021       2015                            d  c2015-0310aAuthor10aBiomedical Research10aEditor10aEducation10aHumans10aJournalology10aManuscript10aPeer Review, Research10apeer review10aPublishing10aresearch report10aReview Literature as Topic10aSelection Bias10aSystematic review10aWriting1 aJames Galipeau1 aDavid Moher1 aCraig Campbell1 aPaul Hendry1 aD. William Cameron1 aAnita Palepu1 aPaul C. Hébert00aA systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology  a257-2650 v683 aOBJECTIVES: To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training.
RESULTS: Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing.
CONCLUSION: Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.  a1878-5921