Skip to main content

Table 2 General characteristics of early career peer reviewers (ECRs) participating in the study (n = 119)

From: Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Sex

 Male

72 (60.5)

Country

 France

52 (43.7)

 USA

20 (16.8)

 Canada

18 (15.1)

 UK

14 (11.8)

 Other European country

12 (10.1)

 South America

2 (1.7)

 Africa

1 (0.8)

Professional background

 Physician

106 (89.1)

 Student

11 (9.2)

 Other

2 (1.7)

Academic background

 Master of Science

49 (41.2)

 Doctor of Medicine (MD)

36 (30.2)

 PhD

32 (26.9)

 Other

2 (1.7)

How did you hear about this training program?

 Faculty

84 (70.6)

 Social network

11 (9.2)

 Network of international students

7 (5.9)

 Editors of biomedical journals

2 (1.7)

 Learned societies

2 (1.7)

 Other

13 (10.9)

Previously trained to perform a peer review

19 (16.0)

Previously trained to appraise an RCT report

77 (64.7)

  1. Data are n (%)
  2. RCT randomized controlled trial