1. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor
- Author
-
Rebecca S. Benner, Thomas W. Riggs, Nicholas Hazen, Laura I. Parikh, and Nancy C. Chescheir
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Reproductive endocrinology and infertility ,MEDLINE ,Gynecologic oncology ,Subspecialty ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Obstetrics and gynaecology ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Retrospective Studies ,Gynecology ,Observer Variation ,business.industry ,Obstetrics and Gynecology ,Retrospective cohort study ,Odds ratio ,Obstetrics ,Family medicine ,Medicine ,Journal Impact Factor ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P
- Published
- 2017