Literature DB >> 7659574

Review of the reviewer.

H Ector, A Aubert, R Stroobandt.   

Abstract

Reviewers can disagree substantially when evaluating the same materials. For papers submitted to an editorial board, the Editor-in-Chief can suggest compromises. However, this is not the case in the normal abstract grading procedures for large meetings. If important discrepancies arise between reviewers, a review committee may propose corrective measures. However, this is only feasible for smaller meetings with a limited number of abstract submissions. In this study, when reviewing the same abstracts, a statistically significant correlation between reviewers was present in 15 instances and absent in 13 others. It would appear that some review of the reviewer is highly desirable and may prevent publication bias.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7659574     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1995.tb06960.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  2 in total

1.  Poster exhibitions at national conferences: education or farce?

Authors:  Gabriele Salzl; Stefan Gölder; Antje Timmer; Jörg Marienhagen; Jürgen Schölmerich; Johannes Grossmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  How do Medical Societies Select Science for Conference Presentation? How Should They?

Authors:  Thomas M Kuczmarski; Ali S Raja; Daniel J Pallin
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-07-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.