Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 52, Issue 7, 1999, Pages 625-629

  Van Rooyen, Susan ^a   Black, Nick ^b   Godlee, Fiona ^a  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

Internal consistency; Peer review; Reliability; Respondent burden; Review quality; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; INSTRUMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0033051347     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00047-5     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. McNutt R.A., Evans A.T., Fletcher R.H., Fletcher S.W. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 263:1990;1371-1376.
2. Streiner D.L., Norman G.R. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 1989;Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford.
3. McDowell I., Jenkinson C. Development standards for health measures. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1:1996;238-246.
4. Cronbach L.J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 1960;Harper & Row, New York.
5. Cohen J. Weighted kappa. Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit Psychol Bull. 70:1968;213-220.
6. Friedman M. A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat. 11:1940;86-92.
7. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics. 1:1945;80-83.
8. Friedman M. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality explicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 32:1937;675-701.
9. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., Black N. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. a randomized trial JAMA. 280:1998;234-237.
10. Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 280:1998;231-233.
11. Van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N., Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations. a randomized trial BMJ. 318:1999;23-27.
12. Moher D., Jadad A.R., Nichol G., Penman M., Tugwell P., Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists Control Clin Trials. 16:1995;62-73.
13. Downs S., Black N.A. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality of randomized and nonrandomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 52:1998;377-384.
14. The Annual Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1997. London: NHS Executive; 1997.