Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study subjects
From: Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial
Characteristic | Control Group (n = 22) | Mentored Group (n = 24) |
|---|---|---|
Prior peer review experience | Â | Â |
Any prior peer review | 11 | 14 |
Prior peer review for 3 or more other journals | 8 | 4 |
Prior peer review experience with a journal of higher impact than Annals | 7 | 5 |
Prior authorship experience | Â | Â |
Median number of first-author publications in a peer-reviewed journal (range) | 3 (0 to 15) | 4 (1 to 20) |
Median number of first-author publications in a peer-reviewed journal of higher impact than Annals (range) | 0 (0 to 3) | 1 (0 to 3) |
Self-reported average usefulness score of various experiences to their peer review skills (Likert scale 1 low, 5 high), with response rates shown | Â | Â |
Previous peer review experience at another journal | 3.5 (n = 14) | 4.2 (n = 17) |
Formal training course in peer review | 3.1 (n = 8) | 3.6 (n = 14) |
Formal training in critical appraisal | 4.0 (n = 10) | 4.0 (n = 17) |
Mentorship at Annals from editors or other reviewers | 3.3 (n = 7) | 3.5 (n = 20) |
Other mentoring | 3.4 (n = 9) | 3.4 (n = 11) |
Instructional articles or media on peer review | 3.2 (n = 11) | 2.7 (n = 16) |
Number of experiences of any category of training or mentoring (excluding at a previous journal) listed above (95% CI) p = .003 | 2.6 (2.1 to 3.2) (n = 17) | 3.9 (3.4 to 4.4) (n = 20) |