Author Perception of Peer Review

OBJECTIVE: To survey authors submitting manuscripts to a leading specialty journal regarding their assessment of editorial review. The study sought factors affecting authors' satisfaction and whether authors rated the journal review processes differently from the commentary provided by different reviewers. METHODS: Participation in an online survey was offered to 445 corresponding authors of research manuscripts submitted consecutively during a 7-month period. All manuscripts received full editorial review. The survey instrument asked authors to rate six aspects of editorial comments from each of two to four reviewers and three aspects of the review process. In addition, the survey queried overall satisfaction and likelihood of submission of future manuscripts based on review experience. RESULTS: Higher ratings for overall satisfaction with manuscript review were given by authors of accepted compared with rejected manuscripts (98% compared with 80%, P<.001). Authors rated processes for submission and review more highly than editorial commentary (88% compared with 69%, P<.001), and this difference was greater among authors of rejected manuscripts. The extent to which reviewers focused on important aspects of submitted manuscripts received the lowest ratings from authors. Authors' ratings of reviewers' comments differentiated between reviewers and did not correlate with ratings of reviews by the journal's senior editors. CONCLUSION: Author feedback was more favorable among authors of accepted manuscripts, and responses differentiated among aspects of editorial review and reviewers. Author feedback may provide a means for monitoring and improvement of processes for editorial review and reviewer commentary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

[1]  E. Garfield.  The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[2]  J. Carpenter,et al.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  J F Waeckerle,et al.  Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. , 1998, JAMA.

[4]  J F Waeckerle,et al.  Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. , 1998, Annals of emergency medicine.

[5]  E. Lawson,et al.  Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. , 1990, JAMA.

[6]  M. Callaham,et al.  Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. , 2002, JAMA.

[7]  Alon Korngreen.  Peer-review system could gain from author feedback , 2005, Nature.

[8]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. , 2002, JAMA.

[9]  Michael L Callaham,et al.  Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. , 2002, JAMA.

[10]  A. M. Euser,et al.  Quality Assessment of Reviewers’ Reports Using a Simple Instrument , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[12]  D. Rennie,et al.  Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. , 1998, JAMA.

[13]  Fiona Godlee,et al.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[14]  R. Wears,et al.  Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. , 2002, JAMA.