B J Sweitzer1, D J Cullen. 1. Department of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the authors' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the peer review process of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. DESIGN: Anonymous questionnaires were sent to authors to survey their opinions about specific aspects of the peer review process. Authors were grouped by status of their manuscripts: AR (accept with revision), RR (reject but may resubmit), and RO (reject outright). PARTICIPANTS: Authors of unsolicited manuscripts submitted in 1991 to 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors that determine authors' satisfaction with the relevancy and benefit of peer review of their manuscript. RESULTS: Significantly more authors of AR manuscripts responded to our survey than did authors of rejected manuscripts and viewed the review process more favorably. Authors of AR manuscripts were more satisfied with specific aspects of the review process, which led to improvement in their manuscripts. More authors of RR manuscripts believed that our review process improved subsequent manuscript preparation than did authors of accepted manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The surveying of authors, important clients of the peer review process, should guide change necessary to better serve our authors and improve peer review.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the authors' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the peer review process of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. DESIGN: Anonymous questionnaires were sent to authors to survey their opinions about specific aspects of the peer review process. Authors were grouped by status of their manuscripts: AR (accept with revision), RR (reject but may resubmit), and RO (reject outright). PARTICIPANTS: Authors of unsolicited manuscripts submitted in 1991 to 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors that determine authors' satisfaction with the relevancy and benefit of peer review of their manuscript. RESULTS: Significantly more authors of AR manuscripts responded to our survey than did authors of rejected manuscripts and viewed the review process more favorably. Authors of AR manuscripts were more satisfied with specific aspects of the review process, which led to improvement in their manuscripts. More authors of RR manuscripts believed that our review process improved subsequent manuscript preparation than did authors of accepted manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The surveying of authors, important clients of the peer review process, should guide change necessary to better serve our authors and improve peer review.
Authors: Joshua D Wallach; Alexander C Egilman; Anand D Gopal; Nishwant Swami; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph S Ross Journal: Res Integr Peer Rev Date: 2018-01-05