What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

JAMA

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 231-233

  Black, Nick ^a   Van Rooyen, Susan ^b   Godlee, Fiona ^b   Smith, Richard ^b   Evans, Stephen ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b BMJ   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 0032527568     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.231     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Stossel TP. Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:658-659.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA. 1990;263:1338-1340.
5. Lock S, Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? JAMA. 1990;263:1341-1343.
6. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.
7. 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: 234-237.