PubMed · 1136586
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L M Gol'dshteĭn, G I Poel'. 1975. [Ointment bases].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1136586/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
CONTEXT: Better peer review is needed, but proven methods to improve quality are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether written feedback to reviewers improves subsequent reviews. METHODS: Eligible reviewers were randomized to intervention or control (receiving other reviewers' unscored reviews and the editor's decision letter). Study 1 (September 1998-September 2000) included reviewers with a median quality score of 3 or lower; study 2 (April 2000-January 2002), reviewers with median score of 4 or lower. Study 1 was designed with a power of 0.80 to detect a difference in score of 1; study 2, with a power of 0.80 to detect a difference of 0.5. All reviewers were at a peer-reviewed journal (Annals of Emergency Medicine). The main outcome measure was the editor's routine quality rating (1-5) of all reviews (blinded to study enrollment). RESULTS: For study 1, 51 reviewers were eligible and randomized and 35 had sufficient data (182 reviews) for analysis. The mean individual reviewer rating change was 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.26 to 0.58) for control and -0.13 (-0.49 to 0.23) for intervention. For study 2, 127 reviewers were eligible and randomized, and 95 had sufficient data (324 reviews). Controls had a mean individual rating change of 0.12 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.26) and intervention reviewers, 0.06 (-0.19 to 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In study 1, minimal feedback from editors on review quality had no effect on subsequent performance of poor-quality reviewers, and the trend was toward a negative effect. In study 2, feedback to average reviewers was more extensive and supportive but produced no improvement in reviewer performance. Simple written feedback to reviewers seems to be an ineffective educational tool.
CONTEXT: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.