Landkroon et al reported the criteria for grading a reviewer used by the editors for the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. These can help an editor determine the value of a reviewer and his/her contribution to the publishing process. The authors are from the Dutch Journal of Medicine and Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
Parameters:
(1) evaluation
(2) suggestions to the authors
(3) comments to the editors
(4) organization of the review
(5) documentation provided to support decision
(6) enthusiasm by editors for using again as a reviewer
Description of the Review
Score
Grade of the Review
comprehensive and objective evaluation; well-organized and constructive; reasons fully documented; constructive suggestions to authors; comments to the editors very helpful
5
exceptional
careful evaluation; helpful suggestions to the authors; helpful comments to the editors; reasons for decisions well-documented
4
very good
satisfactory and reasonable evaluation; may not be well-documented or organized; suggestions to authors adequate
3
good
evaluation brief and superficial; little documentation or rationale for decisions; suggestions to authors not particularly helpful
2
below average
evidence of bias or unfairness in the evaluation; faulty reasoning; no documentation for decisions; opinion markedly different from those of the other reviewers; do not want to use again
1
unacceptable
where:
• I might use the term fair or satisfactory for a level 3 review.
To read more or access our algorithms and calculators, please log in or register.
