E Frank1. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 69 Butler Street, S.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3219, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the pivotal role of peer review in the scientific process, there has never been a formal study of the way in which reviewers' opinions are elicited. This article describes such a study and makes recommendations for a more standardized approach to the peer review process. We hope, through this publication and related efforts, to encourage such a process in Preventive Medicine and in other journals. METHOD: The study population included the top 100 journals (as rated by the 1989 Institute for Scientific Information citation frequency index). Only journals with primarily U.S.-based editorial offices are included (n = 73). Participants provided their reviewer forms, cover letters for reviewers, and instructions for reviewers that were used routinely. All data were collected in February 1992. RESULTS: The response rate was 97.3%. Journals varied substantially in many of their reviewer requests. While 96% of journals asked reviewers to recommend acceptance or rejection, only 72% asked reviewers to assess manuscripts' novelty, 69% requested assessments of clarity, and only 51% asked for assessments of the reasonableness of manuscripts' conclusions. Similarly, only 46% of journals reminded reviewers that manuscripts were confidential documents, 51% provided a separate cover letter, and 25% provided extensive (>1 full page) reviewer instructions. CONCLUSIONS: While review uniformity is not requisite, differences between review protocols may not be a function of specific journals' needs, but of some journals' excluding important review components from explicit mention. Based in part on the Council of Biology Editors' recommendations, standard components of reviews and of instructions for reviewers are suggested. If editors' expectations were more explicit, reviewers' comments could better serve editorial needs.
BACKGROUND: Despite the pivotal role of peer review in the scientific process, there has never been a formal study of the way in which reviewers' opinions are elicited. This article describes such a study and makes recommendations for a more standardized approach to the peer review process. We hope, through this publication and related efforts, to encourage such a process in Preventive Medicine and in other journals. METHOD: The study population included the top 100 journals (as rated by the 1989 Institute for Scientific Information citation frequency index). Only journals with primarily U.S.-based editorial offices are included (n = 73). Participants provided their reviewer forms, cover letters for reviewers, and instructions for reviewers that were used routinely. All data were collected in February 1992. RESULTS: The response rate was 97.3%. Journals varied substantially in many of their reviewer requests. While 96% of journals asked reviewers to recommend acceptance or rejection, only 72% asked reviewers to assess manuscripts' novelty, 69% requested assessments of clarity, and only 51% asked for assessments of the reasonableness of manuscripts' conclusions. Similarly, only 46% of journals reminded reviewers that manuscripts were confidential documents, 51% provided a separate cover letter, and 25% provided extensive (>1 full page) reviewer instructions. CONCLUSIONS: While review uniformity is not requisite, differences between review protocols may not be a function of specific journals' needs, but of some journals' excluding important review components from explicit mention. Based in part on the Council of Biology Editors' recommendations, standard components of reviews and of instructions for reviewers are suggested. If editors' expectations were more explicit, reviewers' comments could better serve editorial needs.
Authors: Catherine H Davis; Barbara L Bass; Kevin E Behrns; Keith D Lillemoe; O James Garden; Mark S Roh; Jeffrey E Lee; Charles M Balch; Thomas A Aloia Journal: Res Integr Peer Rev Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Olyana N Grod; Amber E Budden; Tom Tregenza; Julia Koricheva; Roosa Leimu; Lonnie W Aarssen; Christopher J Lortie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240