A M Link1. 1. Gastroenterology, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Reviewers increasingly are asked to review manuscripts from outside their own country, but whether they are more likely to recommend acceptance of such manuscripts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether US reviewers or non-US reviewers evaluate manuscripts differently, depending on whether the manuscripts are submitted from outside the United States or from the United States. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis of all original submissions received by Gastroenterology in 1995 and 1996. Reviewers ranked manuscripts in 4 decision categories: accept, provisionally accept, reject with resubmission, or reject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ranking of papers based on nationality of authors and reviewers. RESULTS: The percentage of non-US manuscripts placed in each decision category by US (n = 2355) and non-US reviewers (n = 1297) was nearly identical (P= .31). However, US reviewers recommended acceptance of papers submitted by US authors more often than did non-US reviewers (P=.001). Non-US reviewers ranked US papers slightly more favorably than non-US papers (P=.09), while US reviewers ranked US papers much more favorably (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers from the United States and outside the United States evaluate non-US papers similarly and evaluate papers submitted by US authors more favorably, with US reviewers having a significant preference for US papers.
CONTEXT: Reviewers increasingly are asked to review manuscripts from outside their own country, but whether they are more likely to recommend acceptance of such manuscripts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether US reviewers or non-US reviewers evaluate manuscripts differently, depending on whether the manuscripts are submitted from outside the United States or from the United States. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis of all original submissions received by Gastroenterology in 1995 and 1996. Reviewers ranked manuscripts in 4 decision categories: accept, provisionally accept, reject with resubmission, or reject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ranking of papers based on nationality of authors and reviewers. RESULTS: The percentage of non-US manuscripts placed in each decision category by US (n = 2355) and non-US reviewers (n = 1297) was nearly identical (P= .31). However, US reviewers recommended acceptance of papers submitted by US authors more often than did non-US reviewers (P=.001). Non-US reviewers ranked US papers slightly more favorably than non-US papers (P=.09), while US reviewers ranked US papers much more favorably (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers from the United States and outside the United States evaluate non-US papers similarly and evaluate papers submitted by US authors more favorably, with US reviewers having a significant preference for US papers.
Authors: Elke Ruttenstock; Florian Friedmacher; Michael E Höllwarth; Arnold G Coran; Prem Puri Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Kanu Okike; Mininder S Kocher; Charles T Mehlman; James D Heckman; Mohit Bhandari Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.284