The BMJ's research publications

Open access

  • Schroter S, Tite L, Smith R. Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors. BMJ 2005;330:756-9. [Abstract] [Full text]
  • Schroter S, Tite L. Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. J R Soc Med 2006;99:130-7. [Full text] [Full text PDF]
  • Schroter S, Tite L., Kassem A. Financial support at the time of paper acceptance: a survey of three medical journals. Learned Publishing 2006;19:291-7. [Abstract]
  • Schroter S. Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: A survey of authors. BMJ 2006;332:394-6. [Abstract] [Full text]

Back to top >

Peer review

  • van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJW. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c5729 [Full text ]
  • Schroter S, Groves T, Højgaard L. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations’ and grant reviewers’ perspectives. BMC Med 2010;8:62. [Full text PDF]
  • Tite L, Schroter S. Why do reviewers decline to review for journals? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9-12. [Abstract]
  • Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006;295:314-7. [Full text]
  • Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Smith R, Carpenter J, Godlee F. Effects of training on quality of peer review: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673-5 [Full text] [Peer review training pack]
  • White I, Carpenter J, Evans S, Schroter S. Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomised controlled trials. Clin Trials 2007;4(2):125-39. [Abstract]
  • Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008:101:507-14. [Full text PDF]
  • van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23 - 27 [Abstract] [Full text]
  • van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-29 [Abstract]
  • van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234-7 [Full text]
  • Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-3 [Full text]

Back to top >

Research ethics

  • Schroter S, Plowman R, Hutchings A, Gonzalez A. Reporting of ethical committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals. J Med Ethics 2006;32:718-23. [Abstract] [Full text PDF]
  • Pace NA, Owen M, Schroter S. What happens to papers rejected by the BMJ on ethical grounds. BMJ 2008;337:a1880. [Letter]

Back to top >

Competing interests

  • Haivas I, Schroter S, Waechter F, Smith R. Editors' declaration of their own conflicts of interest. CMAJ 2004;171:475-6 [Full text]
  • Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, Smith, R, Barratt H. Does the type of competing interest statement affect reader perceptions of the credibility of research? A randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328:742-3 [Full text]
  • Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J. Does declaration of competing interests affect reader perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 2002;325:1391-2 [Full text]
  • Williams HC, Naldi L, Paul C, Vahlquist A, Schroter S, Jobling R. Conflicts of interest in dermatology. Acta Derm Venereol 2006;86(6):485-97. [Full text] [Full text PDF]

Back to top >

Editorial decision making

  • Schroter S, Barratt H. Editorial decision-making based on abstracts. European Science Editing 2004;30:4-5.

Back to top >

Authorship/contributorship

  • Barratt H, Schroter S, Smith R. Two postal surveys of different methods of communicating rejection to authors submitting to a general medical journal. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2003;10:289-99.
  • Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is utilized in medical research. JAMA 2002;287:2817-20 [Full Text]

Back to top >

Medical education

  • Sandars J, Schroter S. Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:759-62. [Abstract]
  • Schroter S, Jenkins RD, Playle RA, Walsh KM, Probert C, Kellner T, et al. Evaluation of an online interactive diabetes needs assessment tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 2011;11:35. [Full text]
  • Murray S, Lazure P, Schroter S, Leuschner PJ, Posel P, Kellner T, et al. International challenges without borders: a descriptive study of family physicians’ educational needs in the field of diabetes. BMC Fam Pract 2011;12:27. [Full text]
  • Schroter S, Jenkins D, Playle R, Walsh K, Probert C, Kellner T, Arnhofer G, Owens D. Evaluation of an online diabetes needs assessment tool (DNAT) for health professionals: a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2009;10:63. [Full text]

Back to top >

Presentation

  • Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, Liu PY, Altman DG. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:750-6. [Abstract]
  • Müllner M, Waechter F, Schroter S, Squire B. How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors. CMAJ 2005;172:203-5 [Full text]
  • Barratt H, Schroter S, Smith J. Authors’ perceptions of electronic publishing: Two cross sectional surveys. BMJ 2004;328:1350-3 [Abstract] [[Full text]
  • Schroter S, Glasziou P, Heneghan C. Quality of descriptions of interventions: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001978. [Full text]

Back to top >

BMJ Careers

  • Dosani S, Schroter S, MacDonald R, Connor J. Recruitment of doctors to non-standard grades in the NHS: Analysis of job advertisements and survey of advertisers. BMJ 2003;327:961-4. [Abstract] [Full text]

Back to top >

Papers in preparation

  • Altman DG, Ioannidis J, Moher D, Mollison J, Schriger D, Schroter S. Comparison of submitted and published reports of randomised trials. (In prep. Abstract presented at 5th Peer Review Congress, 2005).
  • Schroter S, Altman DG, Ioannidis JPA. An evaluation of time to publication for randomised trials submitted to the BMJ: a cohort study. (In prep. Abstract presented at 6th Peer Review Congress, 2009).
  • Schroter S, Roberts J, Loder E, Penzien D, Davies S, Houle T. Authors’ awareness of publication ethics: An international survey.
    (In prep. Abstract presented at 7th Peer Review Congress, 2013).
  • Barbour V, Burch D, Godlee F, Heneghan C, Lehman R, Perera R, Ross JS, Schroter S. Characterisation of trials designed primarily for marketing purposes rather than addressing a genuine clinical need: a descriptive study. (In prep. Abstract presented at 7th Peer Review Congress, 2013).

Back to top >