The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Objective: To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers.Design: Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial.
Setting: The Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Participants: 226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae.
Measurements and main results: The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript’s authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p=0.11).
Conclusions: 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.
- McNutt, RA, Evans, AT, Fletcher, RH, Fletcher, SW (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 263: pp. 1371-6 CrossRef
- Stossel, TP (1985) Reviewer status and review quality: experience of theJournal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med 312: pp. 658-9 CrossRef
- Lock, S (1986) A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. ISI Press, Philadelphia
- Honig, WM (1982) Peer review in the physical sciences: an editor’s view. Behav Brain Sci 5: pp. 207-8 CrossRef
- Gardner, MJ, Machin, D, Campbell, MJ (1986) Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. BMJ 292: pp. 810-2 CrossRef
- The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 8, Issue 8 , pp 422-428
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- peer reviewers
- manuscript review
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, CB #7590, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599-7590, Chapel Hill, NC
- 2. the Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania