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

Validation of a simple 5-point rating scale

Posted by plosmedicine on 31 Mar 2009 at 00:05 GMT

Author: Michael Callaham
Position: MD
Institution: Univ of Calif San Francisco
E-mail: mlc@medicine.ucsf.edu
Submitted Date: February 19, 2007
Published Date: February 20, 2007
This comment was originally posted as a “Reader Response” on the publication date indicated above. All Reader Responses are now available as comments.

I regret that in our paper in the January issue (1) we failed to cite an important recent study (2) that validates a simple 5 point quality rating score virtually identical to the one we used, and which we find more efficient than scores with multiple subscales. We apologize for the omission of this helpful research.

References

1. Callaham ML, Tercier J (2007) The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality. PLoS Med 4(1): e40 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040

2. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, and Overbeke AJ. Quality Assessment of Reviewers’ Reports
Using a Simple Instrument. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:979–85)

No competing interests declared.