Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial

BMC Medical Education

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Houry, Debra ^a   Green, Steven ^b   Callaham, Michael ^c  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Critical analysis; Journal peer reviewer; Mentoring; Peer review; Scientific publication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; TEACHER; UNITED STATES;

EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; MENTORS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84869085554     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726920     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-83     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Peer review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review
2. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. Callaham ML, Tercier J, PLoS Med 2007 4 40 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040 17411314 (Pubitemid 46191818)
3. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, J Gen Intern Med 1993 8 422 428 10.1007/BF02599618 8410407 (Pubitemid 23237651)
4. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ, JAMA 2002 287 2781 2783 10.1001/jama.287.21.2781 12038910 (Pubitemid 34594129)
5. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal reviewers. Callaham ML, Schriger DL, Ann Emerg Med 2002 40 323 328 10.1067/mem.2002.127121 12192358 (Pubitemid 34988557)
6. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF, Ann Emerg Med 1998 32 318 322 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70007-1 9737493 (Pubitemid 28413480)
7. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R, BMJ 2004 328 673 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE 14996698
8. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M, J Prof Nurs 2009 25 101 108 10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007 19306833
9. Tercier J, Callaham ML, A normative model of peer review: qualitative assessment of manuscript reviewers attitudes towards peer review http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p90p67x
10. Callaham ML, Schriger D, Cooper RJ, Annals of Emergency Medicine. An instructional guide for peer reviewers of biomedical manuscripts http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/webfiles/images/journals/ymem/index.html
11. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL, JAMA 1998 280 229 231 10.1001/jama.280.3.229 9676664 (Pubitemid 28493890)
12. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F, J Clin Epidemiol 1999 52 625 629 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00047-5 10391655 (Pubitemid 29281657)
13. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Callaham ML, McCulloch C, Ann Emerg Med 2011 57 141 148 10.1016/j.annemergmed. 2010.07.027 21074894
14. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH, Applied longitudinal analysis Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Interscience 2004
15. Tutorial in biostatistics. An introduction to hierarchical linear modelling. Sullivan LM, Dukes KA, Losina E, Stat Med 1999 18 855 888 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990415)18:7<855::AID-SIM117>3.0.CO;2-7 10327531 (Pubitemid 29154551)
16. Going beyond the problem as given: Problem solving in expert and novice writers. Bryson M, Bereiter C, Scardamalia M, Joram E, Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum, Sternberg RJ, Frensch PA, 1991 61 84
17. Reviewers perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Snell L, Spencer J, Med Educ 2005 39 90 97 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004. 02026.x 15612905
18. Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings. Parkes J, Hyde C, Deeks J, Milne R, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001 3 D001270 11686986
19. Critical appraisal skills training for health care professionals: a randomized controlled trial. Taylor RS, Reeves BC, Ewings PE, Taylor RJ, BMC Med Educ 2004 4 30 10.1186/1472-6920-4-30 15585061 (Pubitemid 40132258)
20. The journal club in postgraduate medical education: a systematic review. Ebbert JO, Montori VM, Schultz HJ, Med Teach 2001 23 455 461 12098365 (Pubitemid 33040318)
21. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability. Green SM, Callaham ML, Ann Emerg Med 2011 57 149 52.e4 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.005 20947204
22. Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? Shashok K, BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008 8 3 10.1186/1471-2288-8-3 18237378 (Pubitemid 351417035)