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 (16)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Sara Schroter, PhD; Leanne Tite, MSc; Andrew Hutchings, MSc; Nick Black, MD

JAMA. 2006;295:314-317.

Context  Many journals give authors who submit papers the opportunity to suggest reviewers. Use of these reviewers varies by journal and little is known about the quality of the reviews they produce.

Objective  To compare author- and editor-suggested reviewers to investigate differences in review quality and recommendations for publication.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals. Editors were instructed to make decisions about their choice of reviewers in their usual manner. Journal administrators then requested additional reviews from the author's list of suggestions according to a strict protocol.

Main Outcome Measure  Review quality using the Review Quality Instrument and the proportion of reviewers recommending acceptance (including minor revision), revision, or rejection.

Results  There were 788 reviews for 329 manuscripts. Review quality (mean difference in Review Quality Instrument score, –0.05; P = .27) did not differ significantly between author- and editor-suggested reviewers. The author-suggested reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.66) or revise (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-4.97). This difference was larger in the open reviews of BMJ than among the blinded reviews of other journals for acceptance (P = .02). Where author- and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recommendations, the final editorial decision to accept or reject a study was evenly balanced (50.9% of decisions consistent with the preferences of the author-suggested reviewers).

Conclusions  Author- and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication.

Author Affiliations: BMJ Editorial Office, BMA House, London (Dr Schroter and Ms Tite); Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London (Mr Hutchings and Dr Black), England.

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Quality control: a necessary, but sometimes overlooked, tool for improving respiratory medicine
Farre and Navajas
Eur Respir J 2009;33:722-723.
FULL TEXT  

Handling Manuscript Rejection: Insights From Evidence and Experience
Woolley and Barron
Chest 2009;135:573-577.
FULL TEXT  

Update in Critical Care 2006
Milbrandt et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007;175:638-648.
FULL TEXT  

Effects of differences between peer reviewers suggested by authors and by editors.
Cummings
JAMA 2006;296:1231-1231.
FULL TEXT  

From the library
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006;90:662-662.
FULL TEXT  

Jury Selection
Reider
Am J Sports Med 2006;34:541-541.
FULL TEXT  

What's new in the other general journals
Tonks
BMJ 2006;332:225-226.
FULL TEXT