This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (65)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Nick Black, MD; Susan van Rooyen, BSc; Fiona Godlee, MRCP; Richard Smith, FRCP; Stephen Evans, MSc

JAMA. 1998;280:231-233.

Context.— Selecting peer reviewers who will provide high-quality reviews is a central task of editors of biomedical journals.

Objectives.— To determine the characteristics of reviewers for a general medical journal who produce high-quality reviews and to describe the characteristics of a good review, particularly in terms of the time spent reviewing and turnaround time.

Design, Setting, and Participants.— Surveys of reviewers of the 420 manuscripts submitted to BMJ between January and June 1997.

Main Outcome Measures.— Review quality was assessed independently by 2 editors and by the corresponding author using a newly developed 7-item review quality instrument.

Results.— Of the 420 manuscripts, 345 (82%) had 2 reviews completed, for a total of 690 reviews. Authors' assessments of review quality were available for 507 reviews. The characteristics of reviewers had little association with the quality of the reviews they produced (explaining only 8% of the variation), regardless of whether editors or authors defined the quality of the review. In a logistic regression analysis, the only significant factor associated with higher-quality ratings by both editors and authors was reviewers trained in epidemiology or statistics. Younger age also was an independent predictor for editors' quality assessments, while reviews performed by reviewers who were members of an editorial board were rated of poorer quality by authors. Review quality increased with time spent on a review, up to 3 hours but not beyond.

Conclusions.— 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.

From the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (Dr Black and Mr Evans) and BMJ (Ms Rooyen and Drs Godlee and Smith), London, England.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
Schroter et al.
JRSM 2008;101:507-514.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
Landkroon et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:979-985.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence based publishing
Tite and Schroter
BMJ 2006;333:366-366.
FULL TEXT  

Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors
Schroter et al.
JAMA 2006;295:314-317.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective
Savulescu and Viens
J. Med. Ethics 2005;31:591-597.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reviewing the Reviewers: Comparison of Review Quality and Reviewer Characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology
Kliewer et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005;184:1731-1735.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers
Kliewer et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004;183:1545-1550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal: [Le devis de recherche, l'originalite et la coherence generale des manuscrits soumis au Journal influencent leur acceptation ou leur rejet]
Turcotte et al.
Canadian J. Anesthesia 2004;51:549-556.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial
Schroter et al.
BMJ 2004;328:673.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals
Laine et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:1038-1040.
FULL TEXT  

HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2003;27:47-52.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How I Review an Original Scientific Article
Hoppin
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002;166:1019-1023.
FULL TEXT  

The Peer Review Process (aka Peer Reviewology)
Yucha
Biol Res Nurs 2002;4:71-72.
 

Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem
Bacchetti
BMJ 2002;324:1271-1273.
FULL TEXT  

The New Millennium: time for a change!
Holzel and Van Diest
J. Clin. Pathol. 2000;53:1-2.
FULL TEXT  

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial
van Rooyen et al.
BMJ 1999;318:23-27.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT  

Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial
van Rooyen et al.
JAMA 1998;280:234-237.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT