Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 9-12

  Tite, Leanne ^b   Schroter, Sara ^a  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INCENTIVE; LITERATURE REVIEW; SURVEY;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; WORKLOAD;

ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER GROUP; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; WORKLOAD;

EID: 33846287604     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.049817     Document Type: Article

References (8)

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. Smith R. Peer review: Reform or revolution? BMJ 1997;315:759-60.
3. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96-7.
4. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews. JAMA 2002;287:2781-3.
5. 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.
6. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Effects of training on the quality of peer review: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673-5.
7. Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA 2002;287:2795-6.
8. Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Prodding tardy reviewers: a randomized comparison of telephone, fax and email. JAMA 2002;287:2794-5.