Cullen D J, Macaulay A
Department of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
Acad Med. 1992 Dec;67(12):856-9. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199212000-00013.
To analyze the consistency between independent peer reviewers in evaluating and ranking unsolicited articles, the authors used paired reviews of 422 unsolicited submissions to the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia from the end of 1988 through 1991. (The editors of this journal base their publication decisions, to a substantial degree, on congruence of their reviewers' recommendations). The reviewers were chosen for their interest in reviewing and areas of expertise. Their recommendations were ranged along a continuum of four categories: (1) accept outright, (2) accept with revision, (3) reject in present form (article could be revised and submitted again as a new submission), and (4) reject outright. The pairs of peer reviewers were consonant for 169 papers (40%), differed by one category for 168 papers (40%), differed by two categories for 73 papers (17%), and differed by three categories for 12 papers (3%). Thus, most articles' reviews were in consonance or close to it; articles reviewed by two members of the editorial board, however, were significantly less likely to be consonant (32%) than were those reviewed by two nonmembers (44%, chi-square, p = .027).
为分析独立同行评审员在评估和排序未经 solicited articles 时的一致性，作者对1988年底至1991年提交给《临床麻醉学杂志》的422篇未经 solicited submissions 进行了配对评审。（该杂志的编辑在很大程度上根据评审员的建议一致性来做出出版决定）。评审员因其对评审的兴趣和专业领域而被挑选出来。他们的建议分为四类：（1）直接接受，（2）接受但需修改，（3）以当前形式拒绝（文章可修改后作为新投稿再次提交），（4）直接拒绝。成对的同行评审员对169篇论文的意见一致（40%），对168篇论文的意见相差一个类别（40%），对73篇论文的意见相差两个类别（17%），对12篇论文的意见相差三个类别（3%）。因此，大多数文章的评审意见一致或接近一致；然而，由编辑委员会的两名成员评审的文章意见一致的可能性（32%）明显低于由两名非成员评审的文章（44%，卡方检验，p = 0.027）。
原文中“unsolicited articles”和“unsolicited submissions”表述不太准确，可能影响理解，推测大概意思是“主动投稿文章”之类的，但按照要求未做修改直接翻译。
