Evaluating Peer Review in a Medical Journal
Author Information
Author(s): Jackson Jeffrey L., Srinivasan Malathi, Rea Joanna, Fletcher Kathlyn E., Kravitz Richard L.
Primary Institution: Zablocki VA Medical Center
Hypothesis
Articles rejected by JGIM and published in other journals would have a lower rate of citations than those accepted by JGIM.
Conclusion
The peer review process largely succeeds in selecting high impact articles but is not perfect.
Supporting Evidence
- Of 507 submissions, 128 (25%) were published in JGIM.
- Articles published in JGIM had a higher citation rate than those published elsewhere (Rw: 1.6 vs. 1.1).
- Reviewer quality ratings had good internal consistency.
- The editorial publication decision accurately discriminated high and low impact articles in 68% of submissions.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well peer review works in a medical journal, finding that it mostly picks good articles but sometimes makes mistakes.
Methodology
The study analyzed submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine over a year, assessing peer review quality ratings and publication outcomes.
Potential Biases
Reviewers may have personal biases that influence their recommendations.
Limitations
The study may be affected by a halo effect in reviewer ratings and the natural selection of articles based on authors' submission patterns.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.002
Confidence Interval
95% CI: 1.3–1.8
Statistical Significance
p<0.0005
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website