Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts

JAMA

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 229-231

  Callaham, Michael L ^a,e   Baxt, William G ^b   Waeckerle, Joseph F ^c   Wears, Robert L ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MONITORING; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 0032527530     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.229     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Tintinalli JE, Knopp RK, Callaham ML. Evaluation of the peer reviewer: performance of reviewers on a factitious submission. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:504.
2. Baxt WG, Waeckerle J, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? the feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance accepted for publication. Ann Emerg Med. In press.
3. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:443-450.
4. Schulman K, Sulmasy DP, Roney D. Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals. JAMA. 1994;272:154-156.
5. Feurer ID, Becker GJ, Picus D, Ramirez E, Darcy MD, Hicks ME. Evaluating peer reviews: pilot testing of a grading instrument. JAMA. 1994;272:98-100.
6. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993; 8:422-428.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271-1278.
8. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:91-98.
9. Strayhorn J Jr, McDermott JF Jr, Tanguay P. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150:947-952.
10. Cicchetti D. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci. 1991;14: 119-186.
11. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994;272:149-151.