Objective: To compare reviews done by editor-selected reviewers with reviews by author-suggested reviewers, examining the quality, timeliness, and recommendations of the 2 sets of reviewers.
Study Design: Comparison of reviews for 140 manuscripts submitted to a pediatric journal in 2005. For each manuscript, a review by an editor-selected reviewer was compared with a review by an author-suggested reviewer. Reviews were rated using a 7-item quality scale with summary scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 100% (best).
Results: The mean quality score for all 7 items was 48.2% for reviewers selected by editors and 43.9% for reviewers suggested by authors, a small difference that was not statistically significant. Mean days to review completion was 25.4 for editor-selected reviewers and 27.8 for author-suggested reviewers; this difference also was not statistically significant. Editor-selected reviewers recommended acceptance less often than rejection or revision compared with author-suggested reviewers (risk ratio = 0.67; 95% confidence interval = 0.53 to 0.85).
Conclusions: Editor-selected reviewers did not give significantly higher-quality reviews, nor where they significantly faster compared with author-suggested reviewers. Editor-selected reviewers were less likely to recommend acceptance.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at-risk adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
December 2016
Department of Nutrition & Dietetics, Guy's & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Lambeth Palace Road, London, UK, SE1 7EH.
Background: Supportive interventions such as serving meals in a dining room environment or the use of assistants to feed patients are frequently recommended for the management of nutritionally vulnerable groups. Such interventions are included in many policy and guideline documents and have implications for staff time but may incur additional costs, yet there appears to be a lack of evidence for their efficacy.
Objectives: To assess the effects of supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at-risk adults.
A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
J Pediatr
August 2007
Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98104, USA.
Objective: To compare reviews done by editor-selected reviewers with reviews by author-suggested reviewers, examining the quality, timeliness, and recommendations of the 2 sets of reviewers.
Study Design: Comparison of reviews for 140 manuscripts submitted to a pediatric journal in 2005. For each manuscript, a review by an editor-selected reviewer was compared with a review by an author-suggested reviewer.
Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
Drug Intell Clin Pharm
October 1988
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson 39216.
The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer ("peers" or "referees") is termed "peer review.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!