2: Checklists

Improve authoring, reviewing, and editing by using checklists.

Other Information:

Author, reviewer, and editor checklists -- Earlier we expressed some doubt about raising expectations of reviewers for catching errors, with one exception—easy to implement checklists such as that suggested by Simmons and colleagues (Simmons et al., 2011). Checklists are an effective means of improving the likelihood that particular behaviors are performed and performed accurately (Gawande, 2009).

Stakeholder(s):

• Authors: Authors already follow some checklist-like requirements, such as the formatting prescribed by the style manuals of the American Psychological Association (APA) or the Modern Language Association. It is easy to conceive of statistical and disclosure checklists for authors and editorial teams.


• CONSORT: For example, CONSORT has a 25-item checklist describing minimum standards for reporting randomized controlled trials (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Checklists can ensure disclosure of obvious items that are sometimes forgotten: sample sizes, statistical tests, effect sizes, and covariates included in analysis. They can also define best practices and methodological standards for domain-specific applications.


• Reviewers: Authors', reviewers', and editors' examination of each article is almost entirely ad hoc.


• Editors


• Societies: Societies, journals, and individuals could maintain simple checklists of standard requirements to prevent errors and improve disclosure.


• Journals

Objective(s):

2.1: Information & Practices

Content