Cited by 66Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Publishing and Open AccessAcademic Writing and Publishing

Review and publication of protocol submissions to Trials – what have we learned in 10 years?

Open access
Li, Tianjing, Boutron, Isabelle, Salman, Rustam Al-Shahi, Cobo, Erik, Flemyng, Ella, Grimshaw, Jeremy M., Altman, Douglas G.·2017·Trials

Abstract

Trials has 10 years of experience in providing open access publication of protocols for randomised controlled trials. In this editorial, the senior editors and editors-in-chief of Trials discuss editorial issues regarding managing trial protocol submissions, including the content and format of the protocol, timing of submission, approaches to tracking protocol amendments, and the purpose of peer reviewing a protocol submission. With the clarification and guidance provided, we hope we can make the process of publishing trial protocols more efficient and useful to trial investigators and readers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13063-016-1743-0

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E6 Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance, dated April 1996. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm073122.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
  2. [24]PubMed. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, USA. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed 30 Nov 2017 with search criteria (“study protocol”[Title] AND “trial”[Title]) and (“study protocol”[Title] AND “trial”[Title]) AND “Trials”[Journal].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, T., Boutron, I., Salman, R. A.-S., Cobo, E., Flemyng, E., Grimshaw, J. M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (ES)
  • BioMed Central (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Li, Tianjing
Venue
Trials
Published
2016-12-16
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
34-34
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2581059334
Cited by
66
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (16895)
  • British Heart Foundation (PG/14/50/30891, SP/12/2/29422)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, editorial policy, protocol modification, open access publishing, editorial practice
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publications, Publishing, Research Design, Editorial Policies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review