Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Improving Translational Accuracy02:07

Improving Translational Accuracy

Base complementarity between the three base pairs of mRNA codon and the tRNA anticodon is not a failsafe mechanism. Inaccuracies can range from a single mismatch to no correct base pairing at all. The free energy difference between the correct and nearly correct base pairs can be as small as 3 kcal/ mol. With complementarity being the only proofreading step, the estimated error frequency would be one wrong amino acid in every 100 amino acids incorporated. However, error frequencies observed in...
Improving Translational Accuracy02:07

Improving Translational Accuracy

Base complementarity between the three base pairs of mRNA codon and the tRNA anticodon is not a failsafe mechanism. Inaccuracies can range from a single mismatch to no correct base pairing at all. The free energy difference between the correct and nearly correct base pairs can be as small as 3 kcal/ mol. With complementarity being the only proofreading step, the estimated error frequency would be one wrong amino acid in every 100 amino acids incorporated. However, error frequencies observed in...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring01:25

Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring

Blood pressure monitoring is a crucial clinical procedure in diagnosing and managing various cardiovascular conditions. Despite its significance, the accuracy of blood pressure measurements can be compromised by multiple factors, potentially leading to either falsely high or low readings. These inaccuracies are critical as they can significantly impact patient care. So, it is vital to understand these challenges deeply and adopt strategic approaches to minimize errors.
Several factors...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluation of the Suicide Attempt Surveillance System in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, 2016-2019.

Revista Colombiana de psiquiatria·2025
Same author

I was arrested for peacefully protesting against genocide-why our medical leaders need to speak up.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2025
Same author

Remembering Drummond Rennie-Champion of Integrity in Science and Scientific Publication.

JAMA·2025
Same author

Correction: Diagnostic performance of two rapid tests for syphilis screening in people living with HIV in Cali, Colombia.

PloS one·2025
Same author

Editorial: Hunger, Food Sovereignty and Public Health.

International journal of public health·2025
Same author

Guillain-Barré syndrome after the Zika epidemic in Colombia: A multicenter, matched case-control study.

PLoS neglected tropical diseases·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 29, 2026

Measurement of Specific Mycobacterial Mistranslation Rates with Gain-of-function Reporter Systems
06:18

Measurement of Specific Mycobacterial Mistranslation Rates with Gain-of-function Reporter Systems

Published on: April 26, 2019

What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Sara Schroter1, Nick Black, Stephen Evans

  • 1BMJ BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, UK. sschroter@bmj.com

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
|October 9, 2008
PubMed
Summary

Peer reviewers detect few major errors, even after training. Editors should not rely solely on reviewers to identify all methodological flaws, as training has minimal impact on error detection rates.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 29, 2026

Measurement of Specific Mycobacterial Mistranslation Rates with Gain-of-function Reporter Systems
06:18

Measurement of Specific Mycobacterial Mistranslation Rates with Gain-of-function Reporter Systems

Published on: April 26, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Medical Journal Publishing
  • Peer Review Quality

Background:

  • Accurate error detection in scientific manuscripts is crucial for maintaining publication integrity.
  • General medical journals rely on peer reviewers to identify methodological flaws.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze error detection rates by peer reviewers at a general medical journal.
  • To identify types of major and minor errors missed during peer review.
  • To assess the impact of different training interventions on error detection.

Main Methods:

  • Randomized trial involving 607 peer reviewers from the BMJ.
  • Reviewers were assigned to face-to-face training, self-taught training, or a control group.
  • Each reviewer assessed three test papers with pre-inserted methodological errors.

Main Results:

  • Reviewers detected an average of 2.58 out of 9 major errors per paper, with minimal improvement post-training.
  • Biased randomization was the most frequently detected error.
  • Reviewers who did not reject papers detected fewer errors.

Conclusions:

  • Peer reviewers do not consistently detect most major errors, especially those related to study context.
  • Short training interventions have a limited effect on enhancing peer reviewer error detection capabilities.