Please select the eligibility criteria that correspond to the clinical trial below.
Title: Evaluation of an Online Tool (COBPeer) Dedicated to Junior Peer Reviewers for Assessing the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trial Reports
Brief Summary: The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publication. Despite being essential, the assessment of the completeness of the reporting and the identification of switched outcomes are not appropriately performed. Furthermore, these tasks do not suppose a high level of expertise and could be performed by junior researchers.

To assess the completeness of reporting and identified switched outcome(s), junior peer reviewers could use a simple online tool (COBPeer) based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 checklist and Elaboration and Explanation publication for reporting parallel-group RCTs. The tool would feature bullet points eliciting the meaning of each checklist item. The aim of this study that will compare the accuracy of junior peer reviewers using the tool to that of usual peer reviewers when evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched of primary outcome(s) in reports of RCTs


Options:
A: Inclusion Criteria:

Manuscripts will be eligible if:

* They have been submitted to BMJ Open,
* They are original research submissions reporting the results of a randomised trial, and
* They have passed the first editorial filters and have been subsequently sent out for peer review.
* Authors of these manuscripts have provided a completed CONSORT checklist.

According to the official CONSORT extensions, the investigators will also consider other study designs (cluster, non-inferiority and equivalence, pragmatic, N-of-1 trials, Pilot and feasibility, and within person trials), and different intervention types (Herbal, non-pharmacologic, acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine formulas) in all areas of clinical specialty.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Protocols of randomised trials
* Secondary trial analysis studies
B: Inclusion criteria for journals:

It was planned from the beginning that this study will only be conducted at the BMJ Open as it publishes numerous protocols. Hence, no inclusion criteria for the journal were specified.

Inclusion criteria for manuscripts:

All submitted manuscripts sent out for external review that described protocols for RCTs.

Exclusion criterial for manuscripts:

We excluded (i) Manuscripts which were clearly labelled as a pilot or feasibility study (ii) Studies randomizing animals or cells (iii) Separate publications of data analysis plans

Included peer-reviewers:

-Peer reviewers that were invited following usual journal practice
C: Inclusion Criteria:

* master students,
* PhD students,
* residents involved in clinical research during their study,
* clinicians who have never reviewed a manuscript

Exclusion Criteria:

* none
D: Inclusion Criteria:

* Included journals must:
* Endorse the CONSORT Statement (e.g. assessed via journals Instruction to Authors);
* Publish primary results of at least five RCTs in 2017 (identified in a brief PubMed search as publishing RCTs in 2017)

Included Manuscript must:

-Report primary results of an RCTs for which the journal decides to send out for external peer review (since the 10 chosen CONSORT checklist items are applicable to different study designs, the investigators will include all RCTs regardless of study design \[e.g. parallel group trial, cluster trial, superiority trial, non-inferiority trial\]).

Exclusion Criteria:

* Articles presenting clearly secondary trial results.
* Articles presenting clearly additional time points and not the time point where the primary result was measured.
* Economic analyses
* Any other analyses derived from an RCT dataset not including the study's main results -- -RCTs which are clearly labelled as a pilot or feasibility study
* RCTs randomising animals or cells instead of individuals

Included peer-reviewers:

-Peer reviewers that were invited following usual journal practice

Answer: C