Literature DB >> 17456001

Training of peer reviewers: validation of a 5-point rating scale.

Michael Callaham.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17456001      PMCID: PMC1876423          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040166

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Med        ISSN: 1549-1277            Impact factor:   11.069


× No keyword cloud information.
We regret that in our paper in the January issue of PLoS Medicine [1], we failed to cite an important recent study [2] that validates a simple 5-point quality rating score virtually identical to the one we used, and which we find more efficient than scores with multiple subscales. We apologize for the omission of this helpful research.
  2 in total

1.  Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.

Authors:  Annemieke P Landkroon; Anne Margriet Euser; Hans Veeken; Wimpeter Hart; A John P M Overbeke
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

Authors:  Michael L Callaham; John Tercier
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

  2 in total
  2 in total

1.  [The responsibilities of reviewers and editors].

Authors:  M Zenz
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.107

2.  Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.

Authors:  Hendy Abdoul; Christophe Perrey; Philippe Amiel; Florence Tubach; Serge Gottot; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Corinne Alberti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.