Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial

British Medical Journal

Volumn 328, Issue 7441, 2004, Pages 673-675

  Schroter, Sara ^a   Black, Nick ^b   Evans, Stephen ^b   Carpenter, James ^b   Godlee, Fiona ^a   Smith, Richard ^a  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; TRAINING; VALIDATION PROCESS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STANDARD; VOCATIONAL EDUCATION;

EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; QUALITY CONTROL; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 1642325520     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.ae     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999.
2. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews. JAMA 2002;287:2781-3.
3. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:318-22.
4. Thomson O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, Oxman AD, Wolf F, David DA, Herrin J. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(4):CD003030.
5. Beaulieu M, Rivard M, Hudon E, Beaudoin C, Saucier D, Remondin M. Comparative trial of a short workshop designed to enhance appropriate use of screening tests by family physicians. Can Med Assoc J 2002;167:1241-6.
6. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-8.
7. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal. JAMA 1998;280:231-3.
8. Van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-9.
9. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8: 3-15.
10. Simon R. Bayesian subset analysis: applications to studying treatment-by-gender interactions. Stat Med 2002;21:2909-16.
11. White I, Carpenter J, Evans S, Schroter S. Eliciting and using expert opinions about non-response bias in randomised controlled trials. Technical report: email James.Carpenter@Ishtmac.uk