Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 184, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1731-1735

  Kliewer, Mark A ^a   Freed, Kelly S ^b   DeLong, David M ^c   Pickhardt, Perry J ^a   Provenzale, James M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIOLOGY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 20044379252     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841731     Document Type: Review

References (15)

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. JAMA 1994;272:149-151
4. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal. JAMA 1998;280:231-233
5. Rogers LF. Peer reviewers: reviewing manuscripts for the AJR. (editorial) AJR 2002;178:1051-1052
6. Friedman DP. Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment. AJR 1995;164:1007-1009
7. Polak JF. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. AJR 1995;165:685-688
8. Ernst E, Resch KL. Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study. J Lab Clin Med 1994;124:178-182
9. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1977;1:161-175
10. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA 1994;272:139-142
11. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 1991;178:637-642
12. Relman AS. Peer review in scientific journals: what good is it? West J Med 1990;153:520-522
13. Relman AS, Angell M. How good is peer review? N Engl J Med 1989;321:827-829
14. Chew FS. Manuscript peer review: general concepts and the AJR process. AJR 1993;160:409-411
15. Callahan ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998;280:229-231