Editorial Peer Reviewers Recommendations at a General Medical Journal Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care 英文参考文献.docVIP

下载本文档

14
0
约2.77万字
约 5页
2017-05-11 发布于上海
举报
版权申诉

Editorial Peer Reviewers Recommendations at a General Medical Journal Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care 英文参考文献.doc

1、本文档共5页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

Editorial Peer Reviewers Recommendations at a General Medical Journal Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care 英文参考文献

EditorialPeerReviewers’RecommendationsataGeneral MedicalJournal:AreTheyReliableandDoEditorsCare? RichardL.Kravitz1*,PeterFranks2,MitchellD.Feldman3,MarthaGerrity4,CindyByrne5,WilliamM. Tierney5 1DepartmentofMedicine,UniversityofCaliforniaDavis,Sacramento,California,UnitedStatesofAmerica,2DepartmentofFamilyandCommunityMedicine,Universityof CaliforniaDavis,Sacramento,California,UnitedStatesofAmerica,3DepartmentofMedicine,UniversityofCaliforniaSanFrancisco, SanFrancisco,California,UnitedStates of America, 4Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Science University Portland, Oregon, United States of America, 5RegenstriefInstitute, Indianapolis, Indiana, UnitedStatesofAmerica Abstract Background: Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers’recommendationsandtheeditorialoutcomeofmanuscriptsundergoingexternalpeer-reviewattheJournalof GeneralInternalMedicine(JGIM). Methodology/PrincipalFindings:Weexaminedreviewerrecommendationsandeditors’decisionsatJGIMbetween2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendationstorejectversusacceptorrevise.Usingmixedeffectslogisticregressionmodels,weestimatedintra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relationtorevieweragreementanddisagreement.The2264manuscriptssentforexternalreviewduringthestudyperiod received5881reviewsprovidedby2916reviewers;28%ofreviewsrecommendedrejection.Chancecorrectedagreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p,.01). In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscripttype,thereviewer-levelICCwas0.23(95%confidenceinterval[CI],0.19–0.29)andthemanuscript-levelICCwas 0.17(95%CI,0.12–0.22).Theeditors’overallrejectionratewas48%:88%whenallreviewersforamanuscriptagreedon rejection (7% of manuscripts) and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the ma