Evans A T, McNutt R A, Fletcher S W, Fletcher R H
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599-7590.
J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Aug;8(8):422-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02599618.
To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers.
Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial.
The Journal of General Internal Medicine.
226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae.
The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p = 0.11).
Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors.
确定优秀同行评审者的特征。
对一项随机对照试验期间收集的数据进行横断面分析。
《普通内科杂志》。
131篇连续提交的原创性研究稿件的226名评审者。201人（91%）完成评审并提交了简历。
由对评审者身份不知情的编辑根据1至5分的评分标准对每份评审的质量进行评判。评审者特征取自简历。201名评审者中有86人（43%）给出了优秀的评审（评分4或5）。通过逻辑回归分析，作者发现，当评审者年龄小于40岁、来自顶尖学术机构、被选择其的编辑所熟知且对稿件作者身份不知情时，其给出优秀评审的概率为87%，而不具备这些特征的评审者给出优秀评审的概率为7%。仅在双变量分析中有显著意义的其他特征包括先前的临床研究培训、额外的研究生学位以及在评审上花费的时间更多。学术职称与评审质量之间存在负相关但在统计学上无显著意义：正教授中有37%、副教授中有39%、助理教授或研究员中有51%给出了优秀评审（p = 0.11）。
该杂志的优秀同行评审者往往年轻、来自实力雄厚
