 |
|
Effects of Differences Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors and by Editors
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: Dr Schroter and colleagues1 reported that a recommendation of manuscript acceptance (vs revision or rejection) was more common from reviewers suggested byauthors compared with reviewers selected by editors (odds ratio [OR], 1.6). Furthermore, author-suggested reviewers more often recommended acceptance or revision (vs rejection) compared with editor-selected reviewers (OR, 2.7).
These ORs were estimated using conditional logistic regression, thereby comparing recommendations regarding the same manuscript. Acceptance was the recommendation for 51% of the study manuscripts and acceptance or revision was recommended for 81%. These ORs (and the OR of 12.4 in Table 2 of the study) cannot be easily interpreted, as ORs are further from 1 than risk ratios (RRs) when the outcome is common.2-3 In this case, the respective RRs cannot be estimated from the published data. It would enhance the usefulness of the study if Schroter et al could also estimate and report RRs conditional on . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Peter Cummings, MD, MPH
peterc@u.washington.edu
Department of Epidemiology
Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center
University of Washington
Seattle
RELATED ARTICLES
Effects of Differences Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors and by Editors—Reply
Sara Schroter, Leanne Tite, Andrew Hutchings, and Nick Black
JAMA. 2006;296(10):1231-1232.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors
Sara Schroter, Leanne Tite, Andrew Hutchings, and Nick Black
JAMA. 2006;295(3):314-317.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
