Characteristics of reviewers and quality of reviews: A retrospective study of reviewers at Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences

Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 101-106

  Jawaid, Shaukat Ali ^a   Jawaid, Masood ^a   Jafary, Maqbool H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Characteristics of reviewers; Peer Review; Quality of reviews

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTHOR; EDITOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PERFORMANCE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 33744462086     PISSN: 1682024X     EISSN: 1682024X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bordage G, Caelleigh SA. A tool for reviewer's criteria for research manuscripts. Academic Medicine 2001; 76:904-8.
2. Jawaid SA. Problems faced by editors of peer review medical journals. Saudi Med J 2004; 25, Suppl 1: 447-51.
3. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals as approved by ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) revised in October 2004. www.icmje.org
4. Jawaid SA. Proceedings of workshop on Peer Review System. Pak J Med Sci 2002; 18(4) 328-33.
5. Pakistan Medical Journalists Association (PMJA) workshop on peer review at Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan. Pulse International 2005; 6(7) 1-9.
6. Workshop on Peer Review System at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan. Pulse International 2005; 6(10) 1-9.
7. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328:673-5.
8. Schroter S, Groves T. BMJ training in peer reviewers (Editorial) BMJ 2004; 328:658.
9. Kliewer MA, Freed KS, DeLong DM, Pickhard PJ, Provenzale JM. Reviewing the reviewers; comparison of review quality and reviewers characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology 2005; 184:1731-5.
10. Sieglman SS. Assassins and Zealots; Variations in peer review. Radiology 1991; 178:637-42.
11. Gilbert JR, Williams Es, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA peer review process? JAMA 1994; 272:139-42.
12. Stossel TP. Reviewer status and review quality. Experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigations, New Eng J Med 1985; 312:658-9.
13. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Int Med 1993; 8:422-8.
14. Nylenna M, Riis P, Kdarlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts, JAMA 1994; 272:149-51.
15. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280:231-3.
16. Rennie D. Editorial Peer Review: its development and rationale In: Godliee F; Jefferson T. Eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences, London BMJ Books 1999.
17. Jawaid SA, Jafary MH. Peer Review to improve quality of manuscripts: Are we ready for open peer review? (Editorial) Pak J Med Sci 2002; 18(3) 173-80.
18. Rooyen SV, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effects of open peer review and on reviewers recommendations: a randomized trial. BMJ 1999; 318:23-7.