References in periodicals archive ?
Reviews from the 2014 NAERC were considered to be a time-place sample representative of past and future NAERC manuscript reviews.
One hundred and twelve manuscript submissions were each reviewed by three reviewers for the 2014 NAERC, for a total of 336 manuscript reviews conducted by 151 individual peer reviewers.
The interrater reliability of manuscript quality scores for the 2014 NAERC was .15.
The interrater reliability for accept-reject recommendations for 2014 NAERC manuscripts was .09.
There was a significant (p <.0001) and very strong (Davis, 1971) positive correlation (r =.83) between the mean quality scores and the mean reject-accept recommendations for the 112 manuscripts submitted for the 2014 NAERC. Mean quality scores explained 68.3% of the variance in mean reject-accept recommendations; however, 31.7% of this variance was not explained by mean quality scores.
Of the 336 individual reviews conducted on the 112 manuscripts submitted for the 2104 NAERC, 47.6% were completed by assistant professors, 22.2% by professors, 21.6% by associate professors and 8.7% by instructors or similar reviewers.
To fully display the impact a small number of manuscript scores had on interrater reliability, 2014 NAERC manuscript quality scores were reanalyzed after removing the 28 manuscripts with [C.sub.v]s above the 75th percentile ([C.sub.v] > 24.53%).
Thus, reviewer training may not impact the interrater reliability of reject-accept recommendations given that reviewers may have their own idiosyncratic notions, independent of quality, concerning what constitutes an "acceptable" NAERC manuscript.
For the 2014 NAERC, manuscripts were reviewed by instructors or similar, 8.0%; assistant professors, 47.3%; associate professors, 21.4%; and professors, 22.3%.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- Naemorhedus goral
- Naemorhedus goral
- NAEP ESSI
- Nærings Og Energidepartementet
- Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon