IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0022475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey L Jackson
  • Malathi Srinivasan
  • Joanna Rea
  • Kathlyn E Fletcher
  • Richard L Kravitz

Abstract

Background: Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal. Methods: 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. Results: 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in JGIM, 331 rejected (128 with review) and 48 were either not resubmitted after revision was requested or were withdrawn by the author.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

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0022475
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022475
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022475&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0022475?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 348-352.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-9, June.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. David N Sattler & Patrick E McKnight & Linda Naney & Randy Mathis, 2015. "Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-9, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 17-40, April.
    3. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    4. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    5. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    6. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    7. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    8. 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.
    9. Bornmann, Lutz & Schier, Hermann & Marx, Werner & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2012. "What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 11-18.
    10. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 83-88.
    12. Emre Sarigöl & David Garcia & Ingo Scholtes & Frank Schweitzer, 2017. "Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 609-631, October.
    13. Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Wolbring & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2017. "The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2139-2153, September.

    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:pone00:0022475. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.