What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
JAMAPublished 15 July 1998
Nick Black
Citations266
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 characteristics of reviewers studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews, and reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.
Abstract
The characteristics of reviewers we studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews. Reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.
Keywords
Social SciencesDecision SciencesArts and Humanities
JAMAEffect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
286 Citations1998Susan van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee +3 more
Blinding and unmasking made no editorially significant difference to review quality, reviewers' recommendations, or time taken to review.
Journal of General Internal MedicineThe characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
151 Citations1993Arthur T. Evans, Robert Mcnutt +2 more
Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript’s authors.
JAMAMultiple Blinded Reviews of the Same Two Manuscripts
131 Citations1994Magne Nylenna
Experienced and young referees gave a stricter assessment of the manuscripts than their less experienced and older colleagues, and an English version seemed to be accepted more easily than a national-language version of the same manuscript.
New England Journal of MedicineReviewer Status and Review Quality
68 Citations1985Thomas P. Stossel
Communication in biomedical science, as currently structured, assumes the voluntary participation of all researchers in the peer review of articles submitted for publication.
JAMAWhat Do Peer Reviewers Do?
52 Citations1990Stephen Lock
A prospective 9-month survey to assess the refereeing work load of British Medical Journal referees, and, in particular, to compare the work loads of pediatricians and psychiatrists, found that psychiatrists did significantly more work for general journals than pediatricians.