The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>All the opinions in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed to reflect, in any way, those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.<h4>Background</h4>Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jeffrey L Jackson, Malathi Srinivasan, Joanna Rea, Kathlyn E Fletcher, Richard L Kravitz
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/1b306b51f4f84e36af6529d422b8aec8
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:1b306b51f4f84e36af6529d422b8aec8
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:1b306b51f4f84e36af6529d422b8aec82021-11-18T06:49:30ZThe validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0022475https://doaj.org/article/1b306b51f4f84e36af6529d422b8aec82011-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21799867/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Unlabelled</h4>All the opinions in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed to reflect, in any way, those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.<h4>Background</h4>Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal.<h4>Methods</h4>Submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) between July 2004 and June 2005 were included. We abstracted JGIM peer review quality ratings, verified the publication status of all articles and calculated an impact factor for published articles (Rw) by dividing the 3-year citation rate by the average for this group of papers; an Rw>1 indicates a greater than average impact.<h4>Results</h4>Of 507 submissions, 128 (25%) were published in JGIM, 331 rejected (128 with review) and 48 were either not resubmitted after revision was requested or were withdrawn by the author. Of 331 rejections, 243 were published elsewhere. Articles published in JGIM had a higher citation rate than those published elsewhere (Rw: 1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.002). Reviewer quality ratings of article quality had good internal consistency and reviewer recommendations markedly influenced publication decisions. There was no quality rating cutpoint that accurately distinguished high from low impact articles. There was a stepwise increase in Rw for articles rejected without review, rejected after review or accepted by JGIM (Rw 0.60 vs. 0.87 vs. 1.56, p<0.0005). However, there was low agreement between reviewers for quality ratings and publication recommendations. The editorial publication decision accurately discriminated high and low impact articles in 68% of submissions. We found evidence of better accuracy with a greater number of reviewers.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The peer review process largely succeeds in selecting high impact articles and dispatching lower impact ones, but the process is far from perfect. While the inter-rater reliability between individual reviewers is low, the accuracy of sorting is improved with a greater number of reviewers.Jeffrey L JacksonMalathi SrinivasanJoanna ReaKathlyn E FletcherRichard L KravitzPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 6, Iss 7, p e22475 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Jeffrey L Jackson Malathi Srinivasan Joanna Rea Kathlyn E Fletcher Richard L Kravitz The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
description	<h4>Unlabelled</h4>All the opinions in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed to reflect, in any way, those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.<h4>Background</h4>Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal.<h4>Methods</h4>Submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) between July 2004 and June 2005 were included. We abstracted JGIM peer review quality ratings, verified the publication status of all articles and calculated an impact factor for published articles (Rw) by dividing the 3-year citation rate by the average for this group of papers; an Rw>1 indicates a greater than average impact.<h4>Results</h4>Of 507 submissions, 128 (25%) were published in JGIM, 331 rejected (128 with review) and 48 were either not resubmitted after revision was requested or were withdrawn by the author. Of 331 rejections, 243 were published elsewhere. Articles published in JGIM had a higher citation rate than those published elsewhere (Rw: 1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.002). Reviewer quality ratings of article quality had good internal consistency and reviewer recommendations markedly influenced publication decisions. There was no quality rating cutpoint that accurately distinguished high from low impact articles. There was a stepwise increase in Rw for articles rejected without review, rejected after review or accepted by JGIM (Rw 0.60 vs. 0.87 vs. 1.56, p<0.0005). However, there was low agreement between reviewers for quality ratings and publication recommendations. The editorial publication decision accurately discriminated high and low impact articles in 68% of submissions. We found evidence of better accuracy with a greater number of reviewers.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The peer review process largely succeeds in selecting high impact articles and dispatching lower impact ones, but the process is far from perfect. While the inter-rater reliability between individual reviewers is low, the accuracy of sorting is improved with a greater number of reviewers.
format	article
author	Jeffrey L Jackson Malathi Srinivasan Joanna Rea Kathlyn E Fletcher Richard L Kravitz
author_facet	Jeffrey L Jackson Malathi Srinivasan Joanna Rea Kathlyn E Fletcher Richard L Kravitz
author_sort	Jeffrey L Jackson
title	The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
title_short	The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
title_full	The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
title_fullStr	The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
title_full_unstemmed	The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
title_sort	validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/1b306b51f4f84e36af6529d422b8aec8
work_keys_str_mv	AT jeffreyljackson thevalidityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT malathisrinivasan thevalidityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT joannarea thevalidityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT kathlynefletcher thevalidityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT richardlkravitz thevalidityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT jeffreyljackson validityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT malathisrinivasan validityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT joannarea validityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT kathlynefletcher validityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal AT richardlkravitz validityofpeerreviewinageneralmedicinejournal
_version_	1718424337965383680

The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.

Ejemplares similares