Callaham M L, Wears R L, Waeckerle J F
Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):318-22. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70007-1.
To determine whether attendance at a voluntary training workshop improves quality ratings of medical journal peer reviewers.
Peer reviewers for Annals of Emergency Medicine who completed two or more reviews during the 20 months before or the 20 months after October 1995 were eligible. Reviews were routinely rated by editors on a subjective 5-point quality scale. Comparisons were made between reviewers who chose to attend a 4-hour workshop on peer review sponsored by the journal in 1995 (attendees) and 2 groups of reviewers who did not attend: controls matched for review quality and number of reviews completed before the workshop, and unmatched controls. Guest reviewers were excluded.
A total of 298 reviewers completed 1906 reviews before the workshop and 2,194 after the workshop; 2,117 of these reviews were rated by editors. Forty-five attendees participated in the workshop, 39 of whom had sufficient ratings for analysis. Matched controls were almost identical in performance to attendees, but unmatched controls had performed fewer reviews and had lower average ratings before the workshop. There was no significant change in any performance measurement after the workshop, including average quality rating, percent change in quality rating, odds ratio for recommending acceptance, and odds ratio for congruence with editor's decision.
In a self-selected group of experienced reviewers who attended a 4-hour workshop on peer review, no effect could be identified in subsequent performance as measured by editors' quality ratings or reviewer performance statistics.
确定参加自愿培训研讨会是否能提高医学期刊同行评审员的质量评级。
1995年10月之前或之后20个月内完成两篇或更多评审的《急诊医学年鉴》同行评审员符合条件。编辑会按照主观的5分质量量表对评审进行常规评级。对选择参加该期刊于1995年主办的为期4小时的同行评审研讨会的评审员（参会者）与两组未参会的评审员进行比较：一组是在研讨会前评审质量和完成评审数量相匹配的对照组，另一组是不匹配的对照组。客座评审员被排除在外。
共有298名评审员在研讨会前完成了1906次评审，在研讨会后完成了2194次评审；其中2117次评审由编辑进行了评级。45名参会者参加了研讨会，其中39名有足够的评级数据可供分析。匹配的对照组在表现上与参会者几乎相同，但不匹配的对照组在研讨会前完成的评审较少，平均评级也较低。研讨会后，包括平均质量评级、质量评级的变化百分比、建议接受的优势比以及与编辑决定的一致性优势比在内的任何绩效衡量指标均无显著变化。
在一组自行选择参加为期4小时同行评审研讨会的经验丰富的评审员中，根据编辑的质量评级或评审员绩效统计数据衡量，后续表现未发现有任何影响。
