metricas
covid
Buscar en
Neurología (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Neurología (English Edition) The profile of evaluators of a medical publication in relation to the response
Journal Information
Vol. 25. Issue 9.
Pages 530-535 (January 2010)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 25. Issue 9.
Pages 530-535 (January 2010)
Full text access
The profile of evaluators of a medical publication in relation to the response
El perfil de los evaluadores de una publicación médica en relación a la respuesta
Visits
1159
J. Matías-Guiua,
Corresponding author
inc.hcsc@salud.madrid.org

Corresponding author.
, E. Moralb, R. García-Ramosa, E. Martínez-Vilac
a Servicio de Neurología, Instituto de Neurociencias, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
b Servicio de Neurología, Hospital de la Cruz Roja, Barcelona, Spain
c Departamento de Neurología Clínica, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Introduction

The expert is essential in the external evaluation process and for this reason it is necessary to know the profile and characteristics of the best evaluators.

Material and methods

We have retrospectively analysed the external review process of the journal from the 1st of January 2005 until the 30th of June 2009, with the aim of knowing the profile of the experts in relation to the response to the requests. The response rate, mean delay time and responder rate were evaluated, using, sex, age and forming part of the editorial committee as variables.

Results

The response rate fell as the number of evaluations increased. Women had a higher response rate, lower delay time and better performance than males. The response rate showed a tendency to decrease with age and the large majority of responders were between 29 and 39 years. Being a member of the journal committees was not associated with a better response rate, although there was less delay. The response rate and the delay time are similar, although it may increase with the number of requests to a reviewer.

Conclusions

Lower age and being female are associated with a better response. No fatigue effect was observed in good responders, but if there is a fall in the response rates the number of evaluators should be increased.

Keywords:
Editorial process
External review process
Medical publication
Reviewer
Age
Sex
Resumen
Introducción y objetivo

En el proceso de evaluación externa el experto es esencial y por ello es necesario conocer cuál es el perfil y las características de los mejores evaluadores.

Material y métodos

Hemos analizado de forma retrospectiva el proceso de revisión externa de la revista, desde el 1 de enero de 2005 hasta el 30 de junio de 2008 a fin de poder conocer el perfil de los expertos en relación a la respuesta a las solicitudes. Se ha valorado su tasa de respuesta, tiempo medio de demora y tasa de respondedores, considerando como variables el sexo, la edad y formar parte del comité editorial.

Resultados

Al aumentar el número de evaluaciones, se produce una caída en la tasa de respuesta. Las mujeres presentan mayor tasa de respuesta, menor demora y mejor cumplimiento que los varones. La tasa de respuesta se comporta con tendencia decreciente con la edad y el mayor porcentaje de respondedores se encuentra entre 29 y 39 años. La condición de miembro de los comités de la revista no supone una mejor tasa de respuesta, aunque sí menor demora. La tasa de respuesta y tiempo de demora son similares aunque aumente el número de solicitudes a un revisor.

Conclusiones

Menor edad y sexo femenino se asocian a una mejor respuesta. No se ha observado un efecto fatiga en los buenos respondedores, pero sí hay una caída en la tasa de respuesta al tener que ampliar el número de evaluadores.

Palabras clave:
Proceso editorial
Proceso de revisión externa
Revisor
Publicación médica
Edad
Sexo
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
C.M. Olson.
Peer review of the biomedical literature.
Am J Emerg Med., 8 (1990), pp. 356-358
[2.]
T.H. Berquist.
Peer Review and Biomedical Publications: We All Have the Same Sigues.
Am J Roentgenol., 193 (2009), pp. 1199-1200
[3.]
J.F. Polak.
The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
AJR Am J Roentgenol., 165 (1995), pp. 685-688
[4.]
A. Yankauer.
Who are the peer reviewers how much do they review?.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1338-1340
[5.]
J. Matias-Guiu.
Las revisiones externas en las publicaciones médicas.
Rev Neurol., 24 (1996), pp. 765-766
[6.]
A. Marusić, I.K. Lukić, M. Marusić, D. McNamee, D. Sharp, R. Horton.
Peer review in a small a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal the Lancet.
Croat Med J., 43 (2002), pp. 286-289
[7.]
D.J. Cullen, A. Macaulay.
Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal.
Acad Med., 67 (1992), pp. 856-859
[8.]
S.S. Siegelman.
Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review.
Radiology., 178 (1991), pp. 637-642
[9.]
M. Nylenna, P. Riis, Y. Karlsson.
Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts.
JAMA., 272 (1994), pp. 149-151
[10.]
N. Black, S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, R. Smith, S. Evans.
What makes a good reviewer a good review for a general medical journal?.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 231-233
[11.]
R.M. Pitkin, L.F. Burmeister.
Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending.
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2795-2796
[12.]
P.H. Enckell.
Dealing with referees- jutges or colleagues.
Science Editors's Handbook,
[13.]
A.T. Evans, R.A. McNutt, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher.
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
J Gen Intern Med., 8 (1993), pp. 422-428
[14.]
A.S. Caelleigh, J.A. Shea, G. Penn.
Selection and qualities of reviewers.
Acad Med., 76 (2001), pp. 914-916
[15.]
J. Matías-Guíu, R. García-Ramos.
El proceso de revisión y mejora de un artículo.
Neurologia., 24 (2009), pp. 353-358
[16.]
J. Matías-Guíu, R. García-Ramos.
Autores y autoría en las publicaciones medicas.
Neurologia., 24 (2009), pp. 1-6
[17.]
J. Matías-Guíu, R. García-Ramos.
Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas.
Neurología., 25 (2010), pp. 1-4
[18.]
M.A. Kliewer, D.M. DeLong, K. Freed, C.B. Jenkins, E.K. Paulson, J.M. Provenzale.
Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Am J Roentgenol., 183 (2004), pp. 1545-1550
[19.]
M.A. Kliewer, K.S. Freed, D.M. DeLong, P.J. Pickhardt, J.M. Provenzale.
Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Am J Roentgenol., 184 (2005), pp. 1731-1735
[20.]
N.A. Patsopoulos, J.P. Ioannidis, A.A. Analatos.
Origin funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis.
[21.]
D.A. Reed, D.A. Cook, T.J. Beckman, R.B. Levine, D.E. Kern, S.M. Wright.
Association between funding quality of published medical education research.
JAMA, 298 (2007), pp. 1002-1009
[22.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
El factor de impacto y las decisiones editoriales.
Neurología., 23 (2008), pp. 342-348
[23.]
M. Kljakovi¿c-Gaspi¿c, D. Hren, A. Marusić, M. Marusić.
Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal?.
Arch Med Res., 34 (2003), pp. 439-443
[24.]
J.R. Gilbert, E.S. Williams, G.D. Lundberg.
Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 139-142
[25.]
M.A. Zuber.
[Underrepresentation of women among peer reviewers and textbook authors in medicine in Germany].
Medizin Klinik., 96 (2001), pp. 173-180
[26.]
L. Tite, S. Schroter.
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
J Epidemiol Community Health., 61 (2007), pp. 9-12
[27.]
E. Frank.
Editors’ requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
Prev Med., 25 (1996), pp. 102-104
[28.]
T.H. Berquist.
Publication in the AJR: Critical Interactions among Authors, Reviewers,and Section Editors.
AJR, 191 (2008), pp. 1291-1292
[29.]
M. Caruso, C.H. Kennedy.
Effects of a reviewer-prompting strategy on timely manuscript reviews.
J Appl Behav Anal., 37 (2004), pp. 523-526
Copyright © 2010. Sociedad Española de Neurología
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Quizás le interese:
10.1016/j.nrleng.2020.05.011
No mostrar más