editorial peer reviewers recommendations at a general medical journal are they reliable and do editors care在一般的医学杂志编辑同行评议者的建议他们可靠,做编辑.pdfVIP

Editorial Peer Reviewers’ Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? 1 2 3 4 5 Richard L. Kravitz *, Peter Franks , Mitchell D. Feldman , Martha Gerrity , Cindy Byrne , William M. Tierney5 1 Department of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, United States of America, 2 Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 4 Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Science University Portland, Oregon, United States of America, 5 Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America Abstract Background: Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers’ recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM). Methodology/Principal Findings: We examined reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement