Training and experience of peer reviewers: Authors' reply
2007

Training and Experience of Peer Reviewers

publication

Author Information

Author(s): Michael Callaham

Primary Institution: University of California San Francisco

Hypothesis

Can we count on high-quality reviewers to continue producing good reviews over time?

Conclusion

Good reviewers tend to continue producing good reviews, but their performance can deteriorate over time.

Supporting Evidence

  • Good reviewers tend to continue producing good reviews for many years.
  • A modest proportion of reviewers may deteriorate due to changes in their personal or professional lives.
  • Journals should routinely rate reviewers to monitor their performance.

Takeaway

Some reviewers are really good at their job and keep being good, but sometimes they get worse, so we need to check on them regularly.

Limitations

The study does not thoroughly examine the predictive factors for reviewer performance.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pmed.0040145

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication