Literature DB >> 10391655

Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.

S van Rooyen1, N Black, F Godlee.   

Abstract

Research on the value of peer review is limited by the lack of a validated instrument to measure the quality of reviews. The aim of this study was to develop a simple, reliable, and valid scale that could be used in studies of peer review. A Review Quality Instrument (RQI) that assesses the extent to which a reviewer has commented on five aspects of a manuscript (importance of the research question, originality of the paper, strengths and weaknesses of the method, presentation, interpretation of results) and on two aspects of the review (constructiveness and substantiation of comments) was devised and tested. Its internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.84). The mean total score (based on the seven items each scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5) had good test-retest (Kw = 1.00) and inter-rater (Kw = 0.83) reliability. There was no evidence of floor or ceiling effects, construct validity was evident, and the respondent burden was acceptable (2-10 minutes). Although improvements to the RQI should be pursued, the instrument can be recommended for use in the study of peer review.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10391655     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00047-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  28 in total

1.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.

Authors:  S Van Rooyen; F Godlee; S Evans; R Smith; N Black
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; James Carpenter; Fiona Godlee; Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-02

3.  What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; Fiona Godlee; Lyda Osorio; Richard Smith
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.

Authors:  S van Rooyen; F Godlee; S Evans; N Black; R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-02

5.  Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.

Authors:  Kristin K Janke; Andrew S Bzowyckyj; Andrew P Traynor
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  It's Time We Fix the Peer Review System.

Authors:  Daniel Malcom
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.047

7.  Supporting and enhancing peer review in the BJGP.

Authors:  Abigail Moore; Roger Jones
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Evaluation of an internal review process for grants and manuscripts in the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.

Authors:  Karen E A Burns; Elaine Caon; Peter M Dodek
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2014-04-07       Impact factor: 2.409

Review 9.  Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

Authors:  T Jefferson; M Rudin; S Brodney Folse; F Davidoff
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

Review 10.  Practical Tips of English Expressions for Non-Native English-Speaking Peer Reviewers.

Authors:  Mikyoung Lee
Journal:  Vasc Specialist Int       Date:  2021-07-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.