WikiMSK:Peer Review Process

From WikiMSK

This article outlines the peer review process. Only articles that are being considered for "peer reviewed" status are required to follow these guidelines.

Quality Indicators

Content may be published in an unfinished form, and this is encouraged. Articles have an indicator on the top right as to their level of completeness. Quarter circle articles are called stubs, half circles are partially finished, and three quarter circles are complete. The aim is for complete articles to then be peer reviewed, and these articles are indicated with a green circle, with the date of review, and a box with the peer review details at the top. These articles may still be changed, but readers can refer back to the older version that was reviewed.

Disagreements

The lead and deputy editor ensure that any conflicts are appropriately assessed and mitigated. Methods of mitigation include peer review, revision or elimination of content, and/or replacement of contributors. The lead and deputy editors have the final say in the event of an impasse, but it is preferred to denote where there was a disagreement.

Accuracy

None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with WikiMSK in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate information that is in the website or linked to from the website.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interests refer to all commercial, financial, and other relationships related to the content of an article or articles. Related means any relation with for-profit or not-for-profit third parties within the past 36 months whose interests may be affected by the content of the article(s).

Relevant disclosures include grants or contracts; royalties or licences; consulting fees; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, article writing, or educational events; payment for expert testimony; support for attending meeting or travel; patents planned, issued, or pending; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board; stock or stock options (other than whole market ETFs); receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid.

An example of a conflict of interest is owning distribution rights in New Zealand to hyaluronic acid and authoring an article on hyaluronic acid injections.

Being a NZAMM member and working in Musculoskeletal Medicine do not need to be overtly stipulated.

The lead and deputy editors are required to disclose any conflict of interests on their user pages, or if there are none then overtly state this. The lead or deputy editor cannot have any financial relationships relevant to the topics they edit.

At the time of peer review of an article, the peer reviewer(s) and primary author(s) are required to disclose any conflicts of interest. If they have not already done so previously in their user page then lead or deputy editor must be confident the reviewer has not developed any new conflict of interests. The conflict of interest statement can either be listed on their user page or in the article being reviewed.

The primary author or authors are those users who have contributed significantly to the content of the article. Primary authors are required to disclose conflicts of interest at the time of peer review. This can occur either on their user pages or in the article being reviewed.

For non-primary authors, a conflict of interest statement is not required, but encouraged. An example of a non-primary author is someone who has made minor modifications to an article.

Identity and Credentials

All user account applicants are verified as being eligible (members of NZAMM) by the lead editor. The NZAMM has a detailed vetting process for membership which requires relevant credentials.

For standard users, it is up to the user whether they want to publicly display their full name and details in their user pages.

All peer reviewers are required to disclose their full name. Peer reviewers must be fellows of the NZAMM.

Public disclosure of identity and credentials is mandatory for the Lead and Deputy Editors.

User Type Eligibility Public Identity Statement Public Conflict of Interest Statement
Lead and Deputy Editors NZAMM Member Mandatory Mandatory
Standard Accounts NZAMM Member Optional Mandatory if primary author
Peer Reviewers NZAMM Fellow Mandatory Mandatory

Grade of Evidence

In order to indicate level of evidence for important recommendations the author or editor can use an Evidence Ratings system for individual statements.

ASIPP criteria is preferred when assessing evidence in WikiMSK.[1] The ASIPP template can be used by clicking on insert -> template -> ASIPP, and then putting in the level of evidence. Or in the markup editor {{ASIPP|1}} produces [Level 1]

Modified grading of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis for therapeutic interventions
Therapy/Prevention/Etiology/Harm
Level I Multiple relevant high quality randomized controlled trials
Level II At least one relevant high quality randomized controlled trial or multiple relevant moderate or low quality randomized controlled trials
Level III At least one relevant moderate or low quality randomized controlled trial study
or
At least one relevant high quality non-randomized trial or observational study with multiple moderate
or
multiple moderate or low quality observational studies
Level IV Multiple moderate or low quality relevant observational studies
Level V Opinion or consensus of large group of clinicians and/or scientists.
Modified grading of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis for diagnostic accuracy
Diagnosis
Level I Multiple high quality diagnostic accuracy studies
Level II At least one high quality diagnostic accuracy study or multiple moderate or low quality diagnostic accuracy studies
Level III At least one moderate quality diagnostic accuracy study in addition to low quality studies
Level IV Multiple relevant low quality diagnostic accuracy studies
Level V Opinion or consensus of large group of clinicians and/or scientists.

Plagiarism

The article should be checked for plagiarism and modified accordingly.

References

  1. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. A modified approach to grading of evidence. Pain Physician. 2014;17(3):E319-E325.