Date Published: January 30, 2007
Publisher: PLoS Medicine
Abstract: The PLoS Medicine editors discuss a paper about the difficulties of identifying what makes a good peer reviewer, and the process of peer review in PLoS Medicine.
Partial Text: Skill in scientific peer review may be as ill defined and hard to impart as is “common sense” . So say Michael Callaham and John Tercier, the authors of a research paper published in this month’s issue of PLoS Medicine, which assessed 2,856 reviews of 306 experienced reviewers at one well-regarded specialty journal. The study concluded that the only significant positive predictors of review quality were reviewers who were less than 10 years out of training or those that worked in a teaching hospital environment.