Citation: Callaham M (2007) Training of Peer Reviewers: Validation of a 5-Point Rating Scale. PLoS Med 4(4): e166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040166
Published: April 24, 2007
Copyright: © 2007 Michael Callaham. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The author received no specific funding for this article.
Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
We regret that in our paper in the January issue of PLoS Medicine , we failed to cite an important recent study  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.
- 1. Callaham ML, Tercier J (2007) The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 4: e40.ML CallahamJ. Tercier2007The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.PLoS Med4e40
- 2. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJ (2006) Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol 108: 979–985.AP LandkroonAM EuserH. VeekenW. HartAJ Overbeke2006Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.Obstet Gynecol108979985