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

 Male72 (60.5)
 France52 (43.7)
 USA20 (16.8)
 Canada18 (15.1)
 UK14 (11.8)
 Other European country12 (10.1)
 South America2 (1.7)
 Africa1 (0.8)
Professional background
 Physician106 (89.1)
 Student11 (9.2)
 Other2 (1.7)
Academic background
 Master of Science49 (41.2)
 Doctor of Medicine (MD)36 (30.2)
 PhD32 (26.9)
 Other2 (1.7)
How did you hear about this training program?
 Faculty84 (70.6)
 Social network11 (9.2)
 Network of international students7 (5.9)
 Editors of biomedical journals2 (1.7)
 Learned societies2 (1.7)
 Other13 (10.9)
Previously trained to perform a peer review19 (16.0)
Previously trained to appraise an RCT report77 (64.7)
  1. Data are n (%)
  2. RCT randomized controlled trial