European Urology: Serving Our Readership Through Systematic Peer Review, Use of Reporting Standards, and Encouragement of Postpublication Review

Abstract

EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 188–190 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Platinum Opinion European Urology: Serving Our Readership Through Systematic Peer Review, Use of Reporting Standards, and Encouragement of Postpublication Review James W.F. Catto a, *, Matthew R. Cooperberg b , Jean-Nicolas Cornu c , Christian Gratzke d , Giacomo Novara e , Shahrokh F. Shariat f , Andrew Vickers g a Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; b Departments of Urology and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San c Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France; Germany; e d Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology, Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; f Department of Urology and Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; g Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA The world of medical and biological publishing is evolving quickly. Historically, although publishing could enhance career progression for individuals and advance science as a whole, the number and depth of manuscripts were limited by technology and the slow process of writing and publishing manuscripts. Once published, few papers were corrected or retracted, and scientific discussion was usually pursued through letters to the editor or follow-up reports. All this is changing. The pressure to publish has never been greater for members of the medical and scientific community. It is now expected that medical students and residents must publish if they aspire to academic posts [1]. Competition for funding means that researchers are often judged primarily by the quantity and quality of their published manuscripts. In addition, technological and structural advances in both medical and biological fields offer faster, deeper, and larger perspectives on every biological system and aspect of health care, whether sequencing the genome of thousands of cancers or determining the outcome of medical interventions across whole continents. This vast collection of information is now broadly accessible through data repositories. Finally, the technology of publishing and reading has changed beyond recognition in recent years. Peer review now occurs at an accelerated rate, and online proofs of manuscripts appear almost simultaneously with acceptance e-mails. In 2014, the default version of European Urology became a digital file accessible through e-mail or our Web site and readable on computers, laptops, tablets, and phones. We now know that almost half of our readership uses a tablet or a phone to read the journal, and many completely bypass the journal by using social media to consume our content [2]. These changes are challenging for the traditional medical publishing model, and adaptation is required if our patients, readers, and authors are to be protected. It has become more important than ever that we—as editors, reviewers, and authors—work together to generate high-quality, rigorous work for our readers and that readers accept a role in postpublication review. In this forum, we outline steps that we feel are vital to ensuring scientific rigor. Reporting standards and statistical guidance The purpose of a scientific report is to disseminate knowledge. To do this succinctly and accurately, we encourage all authors to adhere to appropriate reporting standards (as outlined in the journal’s submission guide- lines [3]). These standards offer structure to authors when writing manuscripts, define key information necessary to allow comparisons with matching data from other groups, and improve reporting quality [4]. Reporting guidelines increase the rate of inclusion in subsequent meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence within medicine. Despite these efforts, many published reports contain statistical errors [5]. * Corresponding author. Sheffield University, Academic Urology Unit, G Floor, Institute for Cancer Studies, The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, South Yorks S102RX, UK. Tel. +44 1142712163; Fax: +44 1142712268. E-mail address: j.catto@sheffield.ac.uk (J.W.F. Catto). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.017 0302-2838/# 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.