Rebecca E. Cooney MedicReS World Congress 2015
-
Upload
medicres -
Category
Data & Analytics
-
view
1.546 -
download
0
Transcript of Rebecca E. Cooney MedicReS World Congress 2015
The new roles and responsibilities of medical editors in the age of Big Data
Rebecca E. Cooney, PhDNorth American Editor
The Lancet @BekRx #LancetUSA
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
The Lancet • Established in 1823• Editorial offices in London, New York, and Beijing • Weekly publication • Impact factor = 45.217• 9 “daughter journals” + EBioMedicine
Diabetes & Endocrinology Global HealthInfectious Diseases Neurology OncologyRespiratory MedicineHIVHaematologyPsychiatry
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
2016
The Lancet on the Web
• www.thelancet.com• www.thelancetstudent.com• usa.thelancet.com
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
Overview
• What are the roles and responsibilities of a medical editor in general?
• The lifecycle of a publication • Evaluating a manuscript • Evaluating findings • Focus on clinical trials, protocols, reporting• Transparency• What might the future look like – IOM report, PCORI
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
What do editors do?
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
What do editors do?
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
The Midwife
The role of professional editors•To oversee the peer review process, facilitate effective dialogue between authors and reviewers, and ensure process is efficient and productive.•To set editorial policy and standards for the journal. •To keep abreast of advances in the field. •Editorial writing, commissioning reviews or series, attending conferences, meeting with KOLs, interacting with the media
10
Manuscript Submission
Peer Review
Production
Publish and Disseminate
Edit and Prepare
Archive and promote use
The Journal Publishing Cycle
11
When a manuscript is submitted
• The paper is read by the editor. The editor will review the published literature to assess whether the present work represents a significant conceptual advance.
• This editor will handle the paper throughout the review process. Papers are also discussed with the team of editors at editorial meetings.
What kind of manuscript submissions are we seeing?
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
The Omics• Genomics
– Nucleotide genome sequences, metagenomic sequences– Gene finding, functional annotation, sequence alignment, homology determination,
comparative analysis, phylogenetic inferencing, association analysis, mutation functional prediction, species distribution analysis
• Transcriptomics– RNA expression levels, transcription factor binding, chromatin structure information– Differential expression, clustering, functional enrichment, transcriptional
regulation/causal reasoning• Proteomics
– Proteins levels, protein structures, protein interactions– Protein identification, protein functional predictions, structural predictions,
structural comparison, molecular dynamic simulation, mutation functional prediction, docking predictions, network analysis
• Metabolomics– Metabolite/small molecule levels– Pathway/network analysis
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
Other kinds of Big Data submissions
• Surveillance - detection of Ebola and other emerging infectious diseases
• Risk factors – trajectories of cardiometabolic risk factors
• Epidemiology – Global Burden of Disease studies published with IHME
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
The waterfall model
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
What we look for• Does the study ask an interesting and important
question?
• Does it provide a significant conceptual advance beyond what was already known? Does it change the way we think about a field, process, or particular issue in some way?
• From The Lancet author page: “advances or illuminates medical science or practice, or that educates or entertains the journal's readers”
• Are the experiments logically designed? Is this the right experiment to answer this question?
• Is the paper well presented for a broad audience?
Clinical trial reporting
• Protocol review• Consolidated Standards of Reporting
Trialshttp://www.consort-statement.org/
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
The outcome of initial editorial evaluation
1) Return the manuscript to the authorswith an explanation of why the editors feel it is not likely to be a strong candidate for publication
2) Send the paper out for reviewThe editors identify appropriate reviewers, taking into consideration author suggestions and exclusions
The peer review process
• We ask reviewers to provide comments on technical competence and on whether the paper provides a sufficiently significant conceptual advance
• Reviewers can make confidential remarks to the editor as well as providing a report for the authors.
Why does it take so long?
21
Stage Time (in days)Submission to editor assignment 3.2Editor assignment to reviewer invitation
6.6
Reviewer invitation to reviewer response
4.7
Reviewer agreement to review completion
12.1
Submission to first decision 42.6Stage Time (in days)Submission to editor assignment 2.4Editor assignment to reviewer invitation
13.1
Reviewer invitation to reviewer response
1.0
Reviewer agreement to review completion
17.5
Submission to first decision 34.8
Journal X
Journal Y
What we look for in a reviewer’s report
• A clear, concise summary of the conceptual ‘take home’ message of the paper, and whether this presents an exciting advance for the field
• The key technical concerns and how these could be addressed
• Any minor technical issues (if recommending revision)
• A recommendation whether further experiments that can be completed in a timely fashion would make the paper appropriate
When the reviews come back
• Reviewers don’t always agree, the ultimate decision is not a simple count of votes “for” and “against”.
• The editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and decides in collaboration with team, and sometimes in further consultation with reviewers, whether to invite a revised version of the paper
• Our goal as editors is to communicate the decision and the grounds for the decision to the authors clearly and constructively.
When you receive the decision letter
• Focus on the scientific issues and what will help you improve the paper
• If the reviews or editorial evaluation cite legitimate limitations or lack of sufficient general interest, it is usually in your best interest to submit the manuscript to another journal.
• If the reviewers and/or the editors have misunderstood a key aspect of the paper, consider an appeal
• With resubmission, provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments
25
Manuscript Submission
Peer Review
Production
Publish and Disseminate
Edit and Prepare
Archive and promote use
The Journal Publishing Cycle
Do pay attention to the (wo)man behind the curtain
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
6
Journal Article Production
28
Solicit and manage
submissions
Manage Peer Review
Production
Publish and Disseminate
Edit and Prepare
Archive and promote use
The Journal Publishing Cycle
Electronic Journal Platforms
Traditional Print Journals
29
Methods of Publication Dissemination
AND
30
Other Methods of DisseminationAd-supported Portals Pay-per-View
Podcast/ Blogs/ Mobile
Apps
31
Manuscript Submission
Peer Review
Production
Publish and Disseminate
Edit and Prepare
Archive and promote use
The Journal Publishing Cycle
What could change?
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
Transparency
• Data sharing plan requirement• More sophisticated deidentification • Uniformity requirements for metadata• Allowing other PIs data to allow for secondary
analyses • IOM Report on Data Sharing
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Activities/Research/SharingClinicalTrialData.aspx
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
Some final thoughts
• Should editors be the gatekeepers?• How might pre-publication summary level results
and lay summaries affect traditional peer-review publishing?
• Lay summaries as part of the finished product of a publication?
• Whose responsibility will it be to store all those data? Who will have access? How do we protect patients?
October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
Thank You !
35