A Core-item Reviewer Evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review

Onitilo, Adedayo A., Engel, Jessica M., Salzman-Scott, Sherry A., Stankowski, Rachel V. and Doi, Suhail A. R. (2014) A Core-item Reviewer Evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review. Accountability in Research, 21 2: 109-121. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.847664

Author Onitilo, Adedayo A.
Engel, Jessica M.
Salzman-Scott, Sherry A.
Stankowski, Rachel V.
Doi, Suhail A. R.
Title A Core-item Reviewer Evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review
Journal name Accountability in Research   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0898-9621
Publication date 2014-01-01
Year available 2013
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1080/08989621.2014.847664
Open Access Status
Volume 21
Issue 2
Start page 109
End page 121
Total pages 13
Place of publication Philadelphia, PA, United States
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Language eng
Subject 3304 Education
3309 Library and Information Sciences
Abstract Manuscript peer review is essential for ensuring accountability to all involved in the publication process, including authors, journals, and readers. Lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an accountable manuscript peer review process has resulted in varying practices from one journal to the next. Currently, reviewers are asked to make global judgments about various aspects of a paper for review irrespective of whether guided by a review checklist or not, and several studies have documented gross disagreement between reviewers of the same manuscript. We have previously proposed that the solution may be to direct reviewers to concrete items that do not require global judgments but rather provide a specific choice, along with referee justification for such choices. This study evaluated use of such a system via an international survey of health care professionals who had recently reviewed a health care--related manuscript. Results suggest that use of such a peer review system by reviewers does indeed improve interreviewer agreement, and thus, has the potential to support more consistent and effective peer review, if introduced into journal processes for peer review.
Keyword Accountability
Peer review
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2014 Collection
School of Public Health Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 6 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 03 Dec 2013, 10:12:39 EST by System User on behalf of School of Public Health