Literature DB >> 2304210

Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?

A Yankauer1.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2304210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  11 in total

1.  [Peer review in scientific journals].

Authors:  J Gérvas; M Pérez Fernández
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 1.137

2.  How blind is blind review?

Authors:  A Yankauer
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Speeding up the review process.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1992-10

4.  Canadian Family Physician's peer reviewers. Unsung heroes.

Authors:  A J Reid
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Strategies in writing for a physician audience.

Authors:  H G Welch; G W Froehlich
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Information for peer reviewers.

Authors:  P Huston
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1994-04-15       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes.

Authors:  Madhuri S Kurdi
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2015-08

8.  Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals.

Authors:  Antoni Margalida; M Àngels Colomer
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Olyana N Grod; Amber E Budden; Tom Tregenza; Julia Koricheva; Roosa Leimu; Lonnie W Aarssen; Christopher J Lortie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Peer review process in medical journals.

Authors:  Young Gyu Cho; Hyun Ah Park
Journal:  Korean J Fam Med       Date:  2013-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.