The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 3 , Pages 209-211 , March 2010

Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?

  • Bradley K. Weiner, MD

      Affiliations

    • Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Methodist Hospital, 6550 Fannin St, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 7730, USA. Tel.: (1) 713-441-3595; fax: (1) 713-441-6614.
    • ,
  • Jacob P. Weiner

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
    • ,
  • Harvey E. Smith, MD

      Affiliations

    • Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

Received 8 July 2009 ,Revised 16 September 2009 ,Accepted 2 December 2009.

References 

  1. Kronick DA. Peer-review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321–1322
  2. Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;
  3. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wagner E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–2786
  4. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376
  5. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143–146
  6. Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12
  7. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1998;280:234–237
  8. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding peer reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA. 1998;280:237–240
  9. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?. JAMA. 1998;280:240–242
  10. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations. BMJ. 1999;318:23–27
  11. Das Sinha S, Sahni P, Nundy S. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?. Natl Med J India. 1999;12:210–213
  12. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:47–51
  13. Jefferson T, Smith R, Yee Y, et al. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions. JAMA. 1998;280:275–277
  14. Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA. 1990;263:1355–1357
  15. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:318–322
  16. Strayhorn J, McDermott JF, Tanguay P. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150:947–952

 FDA device/drug status: not applicable.

 Author disclosures: none.

PII: S1529-9430(09)01117-6

doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.12.003

The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 3 , Pages 209-211 , March 2010

Article Tools