Skip to main content
Research Integrity and Peer Review logoLink to Research Integrity and Peer Review
. 2022 Jul 13;7:5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-022-00124-y

Correction: Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers

Danielle B Rice 1,2, Ba’ Pham 3, Justin Presseau 4,5,6, Andrea C Tricco 7,8,9, David Moher 1,4,5,
PMCID: PMC9281154  PMID: 35831912

Correction to: Res Integr Peer Rev 7, 1 (2022)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in the ‘Results’, both in the Abstract and in the main text: it incorrectly stated that ‘a greater proportion of mega peer reviews were male (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male)’, instead of 74% vs 58% as listed in the table.

In addition, ‘Web of Science’ needed to be changed to ‘Clarivate’ in the main text and the ‘Acknowledgements’ section.

The original article [1] has been corrected.

Reference


Articles from Research Integrity and Peer Review are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES