This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alfred Yankauer, MD, MPH

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1338-1340.

Abstract
To assess the nature and work load of reviewers for the American Journal of Public Health, I surveyed a sample of 276 reviewers in the latter half of 1988, with a 96% response rate. Respondents reported reviewing papers for 274 other journals in 1987, 81% of which were monitored by the Science Citation Index or the Social Science Citation Index. They reviewed most often for The Journal of the American Medical Association (27%), the American Journal of Epidemiology (26%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (23%). The median number of journals for which they reviewed was 3.6, the median of their estimated review time was 2.7 hours, and the weighted average review time (adjusted for number of reviews) was 2.4 hours. The range of review time was broad and inversely related to the number of papers reviewed. Respondents donated an estimated 3360 hours of uncompensated labor to the American Journal of Public Health in 1987, and a total of 6439 hours (26.8 hours per reviewer) to reviewing for all journals. Of the reviewers for the American Journal of Public Health, only 31% were not listed as an author of a source publication in the 1987 Science Citation Index and only 15% were not cited.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1338-1340)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Community and Family Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to the Departments of Community and Family Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA 01655 (Dr Yankauer).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How to get your paper published
Fried and Wechsler
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2001;121:S3-7.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
Black et al.
JAMA 1998;280:231-233.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multiple Blinded Reviews of the Same Two Manuscripts: Effects of Referee Characteristics and Publication Language
Nylenna et al.
JAMA 1994;272:149-151.
ABSTRACT