J Dent Res 81(6): 375, 2002
© 2002 International and American Associations for Dental Research
The Need for the IADR to Sponsor a Voluntary Review of Protocols–Before the Research has Begun
Steven M. Pollock
University of Mississippi, School of Dentistry, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216; spollock{at}sod.umsmed.edu
At the IADR Meeting in March, 2002, speakers at the Symposium on Evidence-based Dentistry spoke on problems in abstracting the pertinent facts from many journal articles because of some design flaw. With flawed published research, the abstractors have to determine what weight, if any, to give the article when comparing it with the results of similar studies.
This is regrettable, because the research may have been otherwise well done. It is such a great waste of money and effort, when correctly designed research might have added little or nothing to the expense or effort expended. This is not just a waste to the people or institutions that did the research, but it is also a waste for the whole discipline to which that research pertained.
The IADR, as a service to the research community service, should review protocols on the front end before the research is started. This is a novel suggestion, and is not being done in medicine or other scientific disciplines. This service should be voluntary, free or inexpensive, and done with integrity, such that people presenting protocols for review would not have to worry about their ideas being borrowed, stolen, or revealed to others by the reviewers. With a confidentiality agreement in place, this peer-review process would not cause any breach in patentability and/or copyright.
Reviewing teams should contain at least two persons, with at least one experienced and one less-experienced member. It would be desirable if one of the members of the team was a statistician to help with study design. Once the reviewers have been sent the protocol, the review process itself can be handled collaboratively by a conference call. The review team would make its recommendations and explain why the recommendations are necessary. The identities of the reviewers and researchers would be known to each other, allowing the researcher to consult with the reviewers. The protocol submitter can accept or reject any recommendations. One key point that should be emphasized is that a protocol review should always be voluntary, and never considered as a requirement for funding or publishing.
Of secondary importance is that this process would assist in the development of the less-experienced reviewers and researchers submitting protocols. It would augment relationships and further involvement in the IADR, fitting well with the IADR mission of helping young investigators and investigators in underdeveloped countries. Also, if this service was available only to IADR members, it would increase membership.
Of primary importance is that this service would greatly assist the IADR mission in furthering dental scientific research. It would improve the quality of published research. This service would increase the IADR's value. If this works well, it could be a model that other disciplines could imitate.
