Evaluating Peer Reviews
JAMAPublished 13 July 1994
Irene D. Feurer
Citations39
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score5.35
SNIP10.71
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The reliability and preliminary validity of a grading instrument for editors to evaluate the quality of peer reviews is measured and content validity was confirmed and preliminary criterion-related validity was indicated.
Abstract
The instrument is reliable. Content validation has been completed, and further criterion-related validation is warranted.
Keywords
Decision Sciences
Psychological BulletinIntraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
23,020 Citations1979Patrick E. Shrout, Joseph L. Fleiss
Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences
10,658 Citations2012James P. Stevens
American Educational Research JournalDesign and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook
5,886 Citations1975Albert E. Beaton, Geoffrey Keppel
Introduction to Measurement Theory
1,978 Citations1979Mary J. Allen
Behavioral and Brain SciencesPeer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
1,080 Citations1982Douglas Peters, Stephen J. Ceci
JAMAMinimizing the Three Stages of Publication Bias
225 Citations1990Thomas C. Chalmers
Bias can be minimized by insisting on high-quality research and thorough literature reviews, eliminating the double standard concerning peer review and informed consent applied to clinical research and practice, and publishing legitimate trials regardless of their results.
JAMAA Cohort Study of Summary Reports of Controlled Trials
205 Citations1990lain Chalmers
The hypotheses that clinical trials would be more likely to be followed by full reports if, on the basis of the information provided in the summary report, the trial was judged to be methodologically sound, the results favored the test treatment, and the sample size was relatively large are tested.
BiometrikaCHARTS OF THE POWER FUNCTION FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTS, DERIVED FROM THE NON-CENTRAL <i>F</i>-DISTRIBUTION
205 Citations1951E. S. Pearson, H. O. Hartley
JAMAWhat Can and Should Be Done to Reduce Publication Bias?
82 Citations1990D. W. A. Sharp
Opportunities for bias exist, but more objective evaluation is required before journals need to alter their peer review practices, and the price of some proposed correctives is high.
PubMedVariation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences.
80 Citations1990Lowell L. Hargens
JAMAProblems Identified by Secondary Review of Accepted Manuscripts
72 Citations1990Joseph M. Garfunkel
The majority of manuscripts were thought by the new reviewers to have defects that warranted further revision, but the problems noted were often dissimilar, and 80% of the manuscripts were recommended for publication and others were judged suitable for publication, although not at a high priority.
American Journal of PsychiatryAn intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
53 Citations1993Joseph M. Strayhorn, John Francis McDermott +1 more
The data confirm that the reliability of ratings of scientific articles may be improved by increasing the number of rating scale points, eliciting ratings of separate, concrete items rather than a global judgment, using training manuals, and averaging the scores of multiple reviewers.
PubMedThe impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature. The Stephen E. Breuning case.
52 Citations1990Eugene Garfield, Alfred Welljams-Dorof
JAMAEffect of Acceptance or Rejection on the Author's Evaluation of Peer Review of Medical Manuscripts
31 Citations1990Joseph M. Garfunkel
Assessment of the quality of the reviews that had led to the rejection or acceptance of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatrics found most authors utilized the reviews to modify their manuscripts before submitting them to another journal.
Europe PMC (PubMed Central)Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.
8 Citations1992Gary D. Byrd