International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, CZE, 1997/09.
Quality of reviewers is crucial to journal quality, but there are usually too many for editors to know them all personally.
A reliable method of rating them (for education and monitoring) is needed.
Whether editors'quality ratings of peer reviewers are reliable and how they compare with other performance measures.
A 3.5-year prospective observational study.
All editors and peer reviewers who reviewed at least 3 manuscripts.
Reviewer quality ratings, individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance, congruence between reviewer recommendation and editorial decision (decision congruence), and accuracy in reporting flaws in a masked test manuscript.
- Editors rated the quality of each review on a subjective 1 to 5 scale.
A total of 4161 reviews of 973 manuscripts by 395 reviewers were studied.
The within-reviewer intraclass correlation was 0.44 (P<. 001), indicating that 20% of the variance seen in the review ratings was attributable to the reviewer.
Intraclass correlations for editor and manuscript were only 0.24 and 0.12, respectively.
Reviewer average quality ratings correlated poorly with the rate of recommendation for acceptance (R=-0.34) and congruence with editorial decision (R=0.26). (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Article, Médecine, Estimation, Qualité, Editeur, Capacité, Correction, Erreur, Exploration, Relation, Homme, Littérature scientifique, Manuscrit
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Article, Medicine, Estimation, Quality, Publisher, Capacity, Corrections, Error, Exploration, Relation, Human, Scientific literature
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0446470
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 25/01/1999.