A Macaulay’s research while affiliated with Harvard University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (1)


Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal
  • Article

January 1993

·

11 Reads

·

23 Citations

Academic Medicine

D J Cullen

·

A Macaulay

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).

Citations (1)


... Bolek et al. (2022) reported that reviewers` assessments of separate manuscript sections did not fully align with their final recommendations. Cullen and Macaulay (1992) have found that only 40% of paired human reviewers for a clinical journal were in complete agreement in their review reports. Reviewers often provide divergent assessments of the same manuscript and are usually influenced by factors such as disciplinary background, personal beliefs, and individual interpretation of review criteria (Cicchetti, 1991;Bornmann et al., 2010). ...

Reference:

Revolutionizing Peer Review: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Human Review Reports in Scientific Publishing
Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal
  • Citing Article
  • January 1993

Academic Medicine