Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
- 5 June 2002
- journal article
- other
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 287 (21), 2786-90
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
Abstract
The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. To identify outcome measures used to assess editorial peer review as performed by biomedical journals, we analyzed studies identified from 2 systematic reviews that measured the effects of editorial peer review on the quality of the output (ie, published articles) or of the process itself (eg, reviewers' comments). Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes. Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer reviewComplementary Therapies in Medicine, 1999
- Effect of Attendance at a Training Session on Peer Reviewer Quality and PerformanceAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 1998
- The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review studyThe Lancet, 1998
- Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals?Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1998
- Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor GeneeskundeThe Lancet, 1996
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication languageJAMA, 1994
- Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrumentJAMA, 1994
- Agreement among reviewers of review articlesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1991
- The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trialJAMA, 1990