IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0010072.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L Kravitz
  • Peter Franks
  • Mitchell D Feldman
  • Martha Gerrity
  • Cindy Byrne
  • William M Tierney

Abstract

Background: Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM). Methodology/Principal Findings: We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p

Suggested Citation

  • Richard L Kravitz & Peter Franks & Mitchell D Feldman & Martha Gerrity & Cindy Byrne & William M Tierney, 2010. "Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-5, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0010072
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010072
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010072&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher Baethge & Jeremy Franklin & Stephan Mertens, 2013. "Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal – A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Jeffrey L Jackson & Malathi Srinivasan & Joanna Rea & Kathlyn E Fletcher & Richard L Kravitz, 2011. "The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-8, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0010072. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.