PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of plosmedPLoS MedicineSubmit to PLoSGet E-mail AlertsContact UsPublic Library of Science (PLoS)View this Article
 
PLoS Med. 2007 April; 4(4): e166.
Published online 2007 April 24. doi:  10.1371/journal.pmed.0040166
PMCID: PMC1876423

Training of Peer Reviewers: Validation of a 5-Point Rating Scale

We regret that in our paper in the January issue of PLoS Medicine [1], we failed to cite an important recent study [2] that validates a simple 5-point quality rating score virtually identical to the one we used, and which we find more efficient than scores with multiple subscales. We apologize for the omission of this helpful research.

Footnotes

Michael Callaham (mlc/at/medicine.ucsf.edu)

University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this article.

Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  • Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e40. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJ. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:979–985. [PubMed]

Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science