Does tuition for journal referees work? A quantitative evaluation of a half-day tuition course.
Clicks: 344
ID: 107320
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
344 views
52 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #3 of 9 articles by views in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Most consultants participating as referees in the peer review process of papers submitted to scholarly journals have had no training or tuition. This study attempted to evaluate the effect on reviewing of a half-day course held at the Royal Society of Medicine.Registered consultant delegates were sent two 'doctored' papers, a case report and an original paper, well before the meeting to review at home using the standard computerized score sheet issued with referee requests by Colorectal Disease. At the start of the meeting the scores were entered into a computer as 'Before'. After each paper had been presented and then discussed, it was re-marked to give the 'After' score. The Before and After scores were compared with the post-meeting feedback forms.The Before and After scores provided by the participants for the two papers each reviewed were not significantly different for the questions relating to the publication/rejection decision. The Before score was higher than the After score for questions relating to the Abstract, Introduction and Method sections. Feedback forms regarding the tuition were universally positive and appreciative.Consultants already have the expertise to decide whether a paper should be rejected. The study day appears to give an additional insight that may change an initial opinion. In general a paper scored before the meeting was scored lower after it was presented and discussed at the meeting (the tuition).
| Reference Key |
kelly2013doescolorectal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Kelly, M J;Thomas, W E G; |
| Journal | Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland |
| Year | 2013 |
| DOI |
10.1111/codi.12139
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.