Advertisement
Research Article

The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality

  • Michael L Callaham mail,

    To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mlc@medicine.ucsf.edu

    Affiliation: Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, United States of America

    X
  • John Tercier

    Affiliation: Department of Sociology, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    X
  • Published: January 30, 2007
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040

Reader Comments (4)

Post a new comment on this article

Is "being a good reviewer" a persistent quality?

Posted by plosmedicine on 31 Mar 2009 at 00:04 GMT

Author: Ignacio Garcia-Doval
Position: MD PhD
Institution: Complexo Hospitalario de Pontevedra. Pontevedra. Spain
E-mail: ignacio.garcia.doval@sergas.es
Submitted Date: January 31, 2007
Published Date: January 31, 2007
This comment was originally posted as a “Reader Response” on the publication date indicated above. All Reader Responses are now available as comments.

After reading you interesting paper, I I think I think that all editors will feel a bit disppointed: there are no magic answers to their practical question: who will be a good reviewer for this paper?

So, they will probably stick to the old practice: try to get a good group of reviewers and ask them to do it. However this way of working is based on the asumption that being a good reviewer is a long-lasting quality, so that doing a good review predicts that the next review will also be good.

I could not find a clear answer to that question in this paper. I think that with their dataset the authors can probably provide us with an answer, that will reasure editors on their decission to stick to the group of reviewers that have produced good reviews in the past.
Would they be so kind?

Thanks,
Ignacio García Doval

Competing interests declared: I/we declare that I/we have no competing interests