Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

@article{Schroter2006DifferencesIR,
  title={Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.},
  author={Sara Schroter and Leanne Tite and Andrew Hutchings and Nick Black},
  journal={JAMA},
  year={2006},
  volume={295 3},
  pages={314-7}
}
CONTEXT Many journals give authors who submit papers the opportunity to suggest reviewers. Use of these reviewers varies by journal and little is known about the quality of the reviews they produce. OBJECTIVE To compare author- and editor-suggested reviewers to investigate differences in review quality and recommendations for publication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals. Editors were… CONTINUE READING

Citations

Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 30 extracted citations

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 11 references

Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts

  • S van Rooyen, N Black, F. Godlee
  • J Clin Epidemiol
  • 1999

Editorial peer review: its development and rationale

  • D. Rennie
  • Peer Review in Health Sciences
  • 1999

The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial

  • S van Rooyen, F Godlee, R Smith, S Evans, N. Black
  • 1998

What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal

  • N Black, S van Rooyen, F Godlee, R Smith, S. Evans
  • 1998

The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews

  • AT Evans, RA McNutt, SW Fletcher, RH. Fletcher
  • J Gen Intern Med
  • 1993

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…