Literature DB >> 2304211

What do peer reviewers do?

S Lock, J Smith.   

Abstract

We conducted a prospective 9-month survey to assess the refereeing work load of British Medical Journal referees, and, in particular, to compare the work loads of pediatricians and psychiatrists. Referees completed a record form for each manuscript reviewed and a questionnaire on demographic characteristics and attitudes toward refereeing. Two hundred eleven referees formed a sample of one sixth of the British Medical Journal's active referees; all remaining pediatricians (n = 67) and psychiatrists (n = 65) formed two further samples. Of the 343 referees selected, 301 returned forms or questionnaires. One hundred forty-six referees were editors or on editorial boards. They reviewed for a mean of five journals. They reviewed 1980 manuscripts (a median of 6 for the main sample, 6.5 for the pediatricians, and 8 for the psychiatrists). Most manuscripts were reviewed for journals in the referee's own specialty; only one third were reviewed for other journals. Psychiatrists did significantly more work for general journals than pediatricians (13% vs 9%). All three groups spent less than 2 hours per manuscript.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2304211

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


  6 in total

1.  Speeding up the review process.

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

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

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

3.  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

4.  Reviewers chosen by authors.

Authors:  A Tonks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-22

5.  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

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.