Literature DB >> 30011058

Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache.

Chelsea M Hesterman1, Christina L Szperka2,3, Dana P Turner4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize the reasons manuscripts are rejected after peer review from the journal Headache.
BACKGROUND: Numerous editorials, reviews, and research manuscripts have been published on the topic of manuscript rejection. However, few of these papers evaluate the reasons for rejection after peer review systematically. None are specific to the field of neurology or headache medicine.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all submissions to Headache from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was performed. Peer reviewer and editor comments for each manuscript were reviewed, and unlimited reasons for rejection were coded for each manuscript. Detailed reasons for rejection were then grouped into 9 broader categories.
RESULTS: A total of 784 submissions were received from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 336 were immediately rejected and 434 went on to peer review. During this period, the overall rejection rate was 62.6% and the rejection rate after peer review was 35.7%. The 6 most common reasons for rejection after peer review were: flaws in methodology and study design, poor reporting of methodology, poor statistical analysis, overstatement of conclusions, problems with covariates or outcomes, and problems with the control or case group.
CONCLUSION: Flaws in methodology and study design were the most common reasons for rejection after peer review from Headache between 2014-2016.
© 2018 American Headache Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  manuscript rejection; peer review; publication

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30011058     DOI: 10.1111/head.13343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Headache        ISSN: 0017-8748            Impact factor:   5.887


  3 in total

1.  The fate of manuscripts rejected from Kidney Research and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Sungjin Chung; Jeonghwan Lee; Tae-Hyun Yoo; Gheun-Ho Kim
Journal:  Kidney Res Clin Pract       Date:  2020-06-30

2.  Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals.

Authors:  Daniel Garcia-Costa; Anabel Forte; Emilia Lòpez-Iñesta; Flaminio Squazzoni; Francisco Grimaldo
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 3.653

3.  Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey.

Authors:  Holly K Grossetta Nardini; Janene Batten; Melissa C Funaro; Rolando Garcia-Milian; Kate Nyhan; Judy M Spak; Lei Wang; Janis G Glover
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2019-11-27
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.