Literature DB >> 24983685

The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.

Anthony M Vintzileos1, Cande V Ananth2, Anthony O Odibo3, Suneet P Chauhan4, John C Smulian5, Yinka Oyelese6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the extent to which reviewers' recommendations influence the final editorial disposition of manuscripts submitted for publication. STUDY
DESIGN: Five reviewers retrieved their electronic databases of obstetrical manuscripts that they had reviewed for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The recommendations of each reviewer were grouped in 1 of 3 categories: rejection (or not acceptance), acceptance with major revisions, and acceptance with minor or no revisions. These recommendations were contrasted in the final editorial disposition of the manuscript, which was recorded as "accepted" or "rejected." The quality of the reviews was assessed in a random sample of 10% of the reviews, stratified by reviewer and journal.
RESULTS: A total of 635 reviews were analyzed. Overall, the most influential reviewers' recommendation was rejection, which was accompanied by 93% rejection rate. Recommendation for acceptance with minor or no revisions was accompanied by 67% acceptance rate whereas acceptance with major revisions was accompanied by 40% acceptance rate. There were no variations among reviewers regarding their degree of influence with respect to the final disposition of the manuscript. The final disposition of manuscripts was not influenced by the quality of the reviews nor reviewer's demographics including reviewer's age, year of first peer review, and years active in peer review.
CONCLUSION: The degree of influence on the final disposition of the manuscript depends on the type of recommendation. A recommendation for rejection was the most influential and it was associated with a high rate of rejection. Recommendations for acceptance or minor revisions were also influential but to a lesser degree.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Keywords:  acceptance; peer review; referees; rejection; scientific literature

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24983685     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  2 in total

1.  Publications and rejections.

Authors:  Henk ten Have; Bert Gordijn
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-05

Review 2.  A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

Authors:  Ketevan Glonti; Daniel Cauchi; Erik Cobo; Isabelle Boutron; David Moher; Darko Hren
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 8.775

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.