Comparing Author-Nominated and Editor-Chosen Reviewers
Author Information
Author(s): Wager Elizabeth, Parkin Emma C, Tamber Pritpal S
Primary Institution: BioMed Central
Hypothesis
Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors?
Conclusion
Author-nominated reviewers produced reviews of similar quality to editor-chosen reviewers but were more likely to recommend acceptance during the initial stages of peer review.
Supporting Evidence
- Author-nominated reviewers were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance than editor-chosen reviewers after initial review.
- By the final review stage, recommendations from both groups were similar.
- Mean RQI scores for both reviewer types were below the midpoint of the scoring scale.
Takeaway
The study looked at two types of reviewers for medical journal articles: those suggested by authors and those chosen by editors. It found that both types gave similar quality reviews, but authors' choices were more likely to say 'yes' to publishing the article.
Methodology
Pairs of reviews from 100 submissions were assessed by two blinded raters using a validated review quality instrument.
Potential Biases
Reviewers may feel constrained to reject submissions if they know the authors personally.
Limitations
The study's findings may not be generalizable to journals using different peer-review systems.
Participant Demographics
Submissions from medical journals in the BMC series.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p < 0.001
Statistical Significance
p < 0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website