Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 52, Issue 7 , Pages 625-629 , July 1999

Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts

  • Susan van Rooyen

      Affiliations

    • British Medical Journal Editorial, BMA House, London, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Susan van Rooyen, BSc, Research Assistant, BMJ Editorial, BMA House, Tovistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Nick Black

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Fiona Godlee

      Affiliations

    • British Medical Journal Editorial, BMA House, London, United Kingdom

,Accepted 8 March 1999.

References 

  1. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376
  2. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1989;
  3. McDowell I, Jenkinson C. Development standards for health measures. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:238–246
  4. Cronbach LJ. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper & Row; 1960;
  5. Cohen J. Weighted kappa (Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit). Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–220
  6. Friedman M. A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat. 1940;11:86–92
  7. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics. 1945;1:80–83
  8. Friedman M. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality explicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1937;32:675–701
  9. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review (a randomized trial). JAMA. 1998;280:234–237
  10. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. JAMA. 1998;280:231–233
  11. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations (a randomized trial). BMJ. 1999;318:23–27
  12. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists). Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73
  13. Downs S, Black NA. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality of randomized and nonrandomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384
  14. The Annual Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1997. London: NHS Executive; 1997.

PII: S0895-4356(99)00047-5

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 52, Issue 7 , Pages 625-629 , July 1999

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution