Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study

BMC Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Wager, Elizabeth ^a   Parkin, Emma C ^b   Tamber, Pritpal S ^b  

^a Sideview   (United Kingdom)

^b BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 33745462719     PISSN: 17417015     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-13     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Tonks A: Reviewers chosen by authors. BMJ 1995, 311:210.
2. Earnshaw JJ, Farndon JR, Guillou PJ, Johnson CD, Murie JA, Murray GD: A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2000, 82:133-135.
3. 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 randomised trial. BMJ 1999, 318:23-27.
4. Van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F: Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:625-629.
5. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW: The effectiveness of peer review. In Peer Review in Health Sciences Edited by. Godlee F, Jefferson T. BMJ Books, London, 2e; 2003.
6. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N: Differences in review quality and recommendatins for publication between reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006, 295:314-317.