Document Detail

Author perception of peer review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  18757664     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
OBJECTIVE: To survey authors submitting manuscripts to a leading specialty journal regarding their assessment of editorial review. The study sought factors affecting authors' satisfaction and whether authors rated the journal review processes differently from the commentary provided by different reviewers. METHODS: Participation in an online survey was offered to 445 corresponding authors of research manuscripts submitted consecutively during a 7-month period. All manuscripts received full editorial review. The survey instrument asked authors to rate six aspects of editorial comments from each of two to four reviewers and three aspects of the review process. In addition, the survey queried overall satisfaction and likelihood of submission of future manuscripts based on review experience. RESULTS: Higher ratings for overall satisfaction with manuscript review were given by authors of accepted compared with rejected manuscripts (98% compared with 80%, P<.001). Authors rated processes for submission and review more highly than editorial commentary (88% compared with 69%, P<.001), and this difference was greater among authors of rejected manuscripts. The extent to which reviewers focused on important aspects of submitted manuscripts received the lowest ratings from authors. Authors' ratings of reviewers' comments differentiated between reviewers and did not correlate with ratings of reviews by the journal's senior editors. CONCLUSION: Author feedback was more favorable among authors of accepted manuscripts, and responses differentiated among aspects of editorial review and reviewers. Author feedback may provide a means for monitoring and improvement of processes for editorial review and reviewer commentary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Mark Gibson; Catherine Y Spong; Sara Ellis Simonsen; Sheryl Martin; James R Scott
Related Documents :
14720314 - Cannabis use and cerebrovascular disease.
8860274 - Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
12515484 - Recent reviews. 67.
9129524 - Modeling case mix adjustment of stroke rehabilitation outcomes.
15809774 - Vesicouterine fistula as a complication of forceps delivery: a case report.
18976484 - Case-case analysis of enteric diseases with routine surveillance data: potential use an...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Obstetrics and gynecology     Volume:  112     ISSN:  0029-7844     ISO Abbreviation:  Obstet Gynecol     Publication Date:  2008 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2008-09-01     Completed Date:  2008-11-13     Revised Date:  2009-10-26    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0401101     Medline TA:  Obstet Gynecol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  646-52     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Data Collection
Editorial Policies*
Peer Review*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Factors influencing histologic confirmation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology.
Next Document:  Endometrial effects of tibolone in elderly, osteoporotic women.