Agreement between thoracic reviewers for the european journal of cardio-thoracic surgery

European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 777-778

  Varela, Gonzalo ^a   Rendina, Erino A ^b  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE SALAMANCA   (Spain)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Peer review; Reproducibility of results; Research standards; Reviewers agreement

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; EDITORIAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THORAX SURGERY; HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; THORACIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84898605577     PISSN: 10107940     EISSN: 1873734X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu066     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. McGuire FA. Reflections of the peer review process in journal publication. APAQ 1986;3:285-8.
2. Weiner BK, Weiner JP, Smith HE. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance? Spine J 2010;10:209-11.
3. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 2000;123:1964-9.
4. Baethge C, Franklin J, Mertens S. Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal-a peer review evaluation at deutsches ärzteblatt international. PLoS One 2013;8:e61401.
5. Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, Wedding D, Gwet KL. A comparison of Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:61.
6. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2784-6.
7. Herron DM. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that postpublication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2275-80.
8. Aarssen LW, Lortie CJ, Budden AE, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Tregenza T. Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior? PLoS One 2009; 4:e6283.
9. Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, Rademaker A, Ratner D, Tregre B et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:563-7.
10. Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Freed K, Jenkins CB, Paulson EK, Provenzale JM. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1545-50.
11. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One 2011;6:e22475.
12. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280: 231-3.
13. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript toevaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:310-7.
14. CallahamML, Baxt WG,Waeckerle JF,Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998;280:229-31.