scholarly journals Why Do Manuscripts Get Rejected? A Content Analysis of Rejection Reports from the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine

2020 ◽  
pp. 025371762096584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikas Menon ◽  
Natarajan Varadharajan ◽  
Samir Kumar Praharaj ◽  
Shahul Ameen
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Indian Journal ◽  
Psychological Medicine ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Study Designs

Background: A proportion of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals get rejected, for varied reasons. A systematic analysis of the reasons for rejection will be relevant to editors, reviewers, and prospective authors. We aimed to analyze the reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, the flagship journal of Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch. Methods: We performed a content analysis of the rejection reports of all the articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018, and May 15, 2020. Rejection reports were extracted from the manuscript management website and divided into three types: desk rejections, post-peer-review rejections, and post-editorial-re-review rejections. They were analyzed separately for the rejection reasons, using a predefined coding frame. Results: A total of 898 rejection reports were available for content analysis. Rejection was a common fate for manuscripts across the types of submission; figures ranged from 26.7% for viewpoint articles to 72.1% for review articles. The median time to desk rejection was 3 days, while the median time to post-peer-review rejection and post-editorial-re-review rejection was 42 days and 96 days, respectively. The most common reasons for desk rejection were lack of novelty or being out of the journal’s scope. Inappropriate study designs, poor methodological descriptions, poor quality of writing, and weak study rationale were the most common rejection reasons mentioned by both peer reviewers and editorial re-reviewers. Conclusions: Common reasons for rejection included poor methodology and poorly written manuscripts. Prospective authors should pay adequate attention to conceptualization, design, and presentation of their study, apart from selecting an appropriate journal, to avoid rejection and enhance their manuscript’s chances of publication.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Deni Firmansyah
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 3 Number 2 August 2021. Weappreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making importantcontributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH.We listed the names in alphabetical order.Abram Pratama, dr., Sp.PD.Adhi Kristianto Sugianli, dr., Sp.PK(K), M.Kes.Prof. Dr. Asep Sukohar, dr., M.Kes.Deta Tanuwidjaja, dr., Sp.KFR., AIFO-K.Dimas Erlangga Luftimas, dr., M.Kes., Sp.GK.Edwin Setiabudi, dr., Sp.PD-KKV, FINASIMFenny, dr., Sp.PK., M.Kes.Ginna Megawati, dr., M.Kes.Grace Puspasari, dr., M.GiziDr. Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MM.Dr. Hana Ratnawati, dr., M.Kes., PA(K)Juwita Ningsih, drg., M.Sc.Dr. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.Kes.Santun Bhekti Rahimah, dr., M.Kes.The, Fransiska Eltania, dr., M.Kes., A3M.Teresa Lucretia, dr., M.Kes.Prof. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, dr., Ph.D.Yenni Limyati, dr., S.Sn., Sp.KFR.Yuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes.

scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

scholarly journals PEER REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 2 Number 4 August 2019. We appreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.Ade Kurnia,dr.,SpKJDR Agung Budi,dr.,Sp.BSBenjamin J. Tanuwihardja, dr., SpP, FCCP.Cherry Azaria,dr.,M.KesDecky Gunawan,dr.,M.Kes,AIFODemes Chornelia Martantiningtyas,S.Si.,M.ScDewi Karita,dr.,M.ScDR.Diana Krisanti Jasaputra, dr.,M.Kesdr Dono, Sp.BDrs. Eko Suhartono, M.ScJuwita Raditya Ningsih,drg.,M.ScFanny Rahardja,dr.,M.SiFathul Huda, dr., Ph.D.Heddy Herdiman,dr.,M.KesJulia Windi Gunadi,dr.,M.KesLusiana Darsono,dr., M.Kes.DR.Med. Muhammad Hasan Bashari, dr., M.Kes.Noveline,dr.,Sp.SDr. Oeij Anindita Adhika, dr., M Kes.Prof. dr. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, PhDStella Tinia Hasianna,dr.,M.Kes,IBCLCSusan Irawati, B.Biomed Sc., M.Biomed Sc.DR. Teresa Liliana W, S.Si., M.Kes., PA(K)DR.Titik Respati,drg., MScPHYenni Limyati,dr.,S.Sn,Sp.KFRYuktiana Kharisma,dr.,M.Kes

scholarly journals PEER REVIEW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 2 Number 2 August 2018. We appreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.DR.Achadiyani,dr.,M.Kes Prof. DR. Ambrosius Purba, dr.,MS.,AIFOProf. Andreanus A. Soemardji, DEACherry Azaria,dr.,M.KesDecky Gunawan,dr., M.Kes,AIFODR.Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MMHeddy Herdiman,dr.,M.KesHendra Polii, drg., Sp.RKGJulia Windi Gunadi,dr.,M.KesJuly Ivone, dr., MKK., MPd.Ked Laella Kinghua Liana,dr.,Sp.PA,M.KesDR. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.KesRoro Wahyudianingsih,dr.,Sp.PASijani Prahastuti,dr.,M.KesStella Tinia Hasianna,dr., M.Kes,IBCLCYenni Limyati,dr.,Sp.KFR.,M.KesYuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes

CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures

2020 ◽  
Vol 318 (5) ◽  
pp. H1051-H1058
Author(s):  
Kara Hansell Keehan ◽  
Michelle C. Gaffney ◽  
Irving H. Zucker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Circulatory Physiology ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Timely Fashion ◽  
Additional Figure

The present study was undertaken to address the concern that author compliance with American Physiological Society (APS) journal instructions to authors for data presentation in manuscript figures is inadequate. Common instances of noncompliance are omitted molecular weight markers for immunoblots and bar graphs lacking individual data points. The American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology ( AJP-Heart and Circ) editorial team designed a program to assess figure data presentation in submitted manuscripts. The intended outcome was to improve author compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and to improve overall rigor and reproducibility in articles published in AJP-Heart and Circ. The AJP-Heart and Circ team invited 37 peer reviewers to participate in a figure reviewer project (FRp). Over a period of five months, 32 first-revision manuscripts were enrolled in the FRp. Each manuscript was reviewed by the original peer reviewers and an additional figure reviewer (FR). Post-peer review, corresponding authors and FRs were surveyed for insight into their experiences. Of the 32 corresponding authors invited, 20 (63%) responded to the survey. In response to the survey, 100% of respondents stated that peer review was performed in a timely fashion despite the additional FR. When asked whether the FR experience had any effect on how one would present data in manuscript figures in future submissions, 65% of authors and 83% of FRs said yes. In addition, 63% of authors responding agreed that the overall quality of their figures was improved after revising based on FR comments. This exercise resulted in improved compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and changed attitudes among both authors and reviewers as to the need for consistent and clear data presentation in manuscript figures. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The goal of the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology figure reviewer program was to improve author compliance with existing APS data presentation instructions for manuscript figures. The result was an improvement in compliance with these guidelines. Time from submission to final decision did not significantly increase for papers with the additional figure reviewer, and both figure reviewers and corresponding authors reported positive feedback in post-program surveys.

scholarly journals Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2952-2957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Pier ◽  
Markus Brauer ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz ◽  
Joshua Raclaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Numeric Rating

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers’ evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers’ ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers “translated” a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

scholarly journals Peer Review of JMH Volume 1 Number 5 February 2017

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 1 Number 5. We appreciate everythoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve thescientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.dr.Decky Gunawan,M.Kesdr. Djaja Rusmana, M.Sidr.Fari,Sp.THTdr. Fenny, Sp.PKdr. Hanna, M.Kes., PhD., AIFOProf. Dr. Ida Parwati, dr, SpPK(K), PhDProf.dr. Jeanne A. Pawitan, MS, PhDdr. July Ivone,MKK.,M.Pd.KedDr. dr. Meilinah Hidayat, M.Kesdr. Mia Kusmiati,M.Pd.KedDr. dr. Oeij Anindita Adhika, M.Kes., PA(K)Prof.Dr. Ridad Agoes,MPHdr. Rizna T.Rumanti,M.Kesdr. Ronny Lesmana,M.Kes, AIFO, Ph.Ddr. Roro Wahyudianingsih, Sp.PAdr. Sylvia Soeng, M.Kes., PA(K)drg. Vinna Kurniawati. S, M.KesProf. dr. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, Ph.D

scholarly journals Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Ana Patricia Ayala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Background: Problems continue to exist with the reporting of and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.Methods: This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.Discussion: The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.Trial registration: This trial was registered on the Open Science Framework on June 17, 2021 at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.

scholarly journals The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.  N. Gureyev ◽  
N.  A. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Review System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document