Skip to main content

Table 4 Descriptive information for all measures

From: What does it mean to be good at peer reviewing? A multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis study of behavioral indicators of peer feedback literacy

Measures

N

Min, Max

Mean

SD

Skewness

Not speeded

464

0, 100

96

16

-4.96

Expert agreement

454

21, 39.2

33.6

2.8

-1.1

Peer agreement

823

21, 39.8

36.5

1.7

-1.9

Expert consistency

450

-0.87, 0.90

.35

.32

-0.8

Peer consistency

823

-0.23, 0.99

.69

.18

-1.3

#Reviews

840

1, 6

3.8

0.7

-2.5

#Comments

840

1, 59

24.9

7.7

0.4

%Long comments

840

0%, 100%

33%

32%

0.7

Helpfulness

821

1.0, 5.0

4.0

0.7

-1.0

Priority

411

0.0, 3.0

0.74

0.6

0.9

%Implementable

739

0%, 100%

52%

25%

0.0

%Implemented

733

0%, 88%

21%

16%

0.9

Improvement

286

0.00, 1.04

0.25

0.17

1.1

%Solutions

682

0%, 61%

5%

8%

3.0

%Suggestions

682

0%, 100%

25%

20%

1.0

%Identifications

682

0%, 96%

29%

21%

0.8

%Explanations

738

0%, 88%

20%

18%

0.9

#Features

682

0, 2.84

0.80

0.55

1.7