Titre :
|
Reliability of editors'subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. (1998)
|
Auteurs :
|
M.L. CALLAHAM ;
W.G. BAXT ;
J.F. WAECKERLE ;
R.L. WEARS ;
International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. (1997/09; Prague. CZE)
|
Type de document :
|
Article
|
Dans :
|
JAMA - Journal of the american medical association (n° 3, 1998)
|
Pagination :
|
229-231
|
Langues:
|
Anglais
|
Mots-clés :
|
Article
;
Estimation
;
Qualité
;
Examen complémentaire
;
Homme
|
Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST R0x8D6Fd. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Context. Quality of reviewers is crucial to journal quality, but there are usually too many for editors to know them all personally. A reliable method of rating them (for education and monitoring) is needed. Objective. Whether editors'quality ratings of peer reviewers are reliable and how they compare with other performance measures. Design. A 3.5-year prospective observational study. Setting. Peer-reviewed journal. Participants. All editors and peer reviewers who reviewed at least 3 manuscripts. Main Outcome Measures. Reviewer quality ratings, individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance, congruence between reviewer recommendation and editorial decision (decision congruence), and accuracy in reporting flaws in a masked test manuscript. Interventions. - Editors rated the quality of each review on a subjective 1 to 5 scale. Results. A total of 4161 reviews of 973 manuscripts by 395 reviewers were studied. The within-reviewer intraclass correlation was 0.44 (P<. indicating that of the variance seen in review ratings was attributable to reviewer. intraclass correlations for editor and manuscript were only respectively. reviewer average quality correlated poorly with rate recommendation acceptance congruence editorial decision>
|