A Comparison of Reviewers Selected by Editors and Reviewers Suggested by Authors

Journal of Pediatrics

Volumn 151, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 202-205

  Rivara, Frederick P ^a,b   Cummings, Peter ^b   Ringold, Sarah ^a   Bergman, Abraham B ^a   Joffe, Alain ^d   Christakis, Dimitri A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; EDITOR; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

AUTHORSHIP; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEDIATRICS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS; PUBLICATION BIAS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34447509438     PISSN: 00223476     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Weller A.C. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (2001), American Society for Information Science and Technology, Medford, NJ
2. Earnshaw J.J., Farndon J.R., Guillou P.J., Johnson C.D., Murie J.A., and Murray G.D. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82 (2000) 133-135
3. Schroter S., Tite L., Hutchings A., and Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 295 (2006) 314-317
4. Wager E., Parkin E.C., and Tamber P.S. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors?. Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 4 (2006) 13
5. van Rooyen S., Black N., and Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999) 625-629
6. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N., and Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318 (1999) 23-27
7. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., and Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280 (1998) 234-237
8. Snijders T., and Bosker R. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (1999), Sage, London
9. Rothman K.J., and Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology (1998), Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
10. Cummings P., McKnight B., and Greenland S. Matched cohort methods for injury research. Epidemiol Rev 25 (2003) 43-50
11. Stata statistical software, release 9.1 (2005), StataCorp, College Station, TX
12. Rothman K.J. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1 (1990) 43-46
13. Deeks J.J., Altman D.G., and Bradburn M.J. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M., Smith G.D., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context (2001), BMJ Publishing Group, London 285-312