Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?

Spine Journal

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 209-211

  Weiner, Bradley K ^a,b   Weiner, Jacob P ^b   Smith, Harvey E ^a,b  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Peer review; Publication; Spine

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDITOR; KAPPA STATISTICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SPINE;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHOPEDICS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77649161650     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Kronick D.A. Peer-review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 263 (1990) 1321-1322
2. Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. J R Soc Med (2006)
3. Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wagner E., and Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review. JAMA 287 (2002) 2784-2786
4. McNutt R.A., Evans A.T., Fletcher R.H., and Fletcher S.W. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA 263 (1990) 1371-1376
5. Fisher M., Friedman S.B., and Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 272 (1994) 143-146
6. Jadad A.R., Moore A., Carroll D., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 17 (1996) 1-12
7. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA 280 (1998) 234-237
8. Godlee F., Gale C.R., and Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding peer reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 280 (1998) 237-240
9. Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?. JAMA 280 (1998) 240-242
10. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations. BMJ 318 (1999) 23-27
11. Das Sinha S., Sahni P., and Nundy S. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?. Natl Med J India 12 (1999) 210-213
12. Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L., and Wilkinson G. Open peer review. Br J Psychiatry 176 (2000) 47-51
13. Jefferson T., Smith R., Yee Y., et al. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions. JAMA 280 (1998) 275-277
14. Gardner M.J., and Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA 263 (1990) 1355-1357
15. Callaham M.L., Wears R.L., and Waeckerle J.F. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med 32 (1998) 318-322
16. Strayhorn J., McDermott Jr. J.F., and Tanguay P. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 150 (1993) 947-952