Jj. Earnshaw et al., A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editorsin the peer review process, ANN RC SURG, 82(4), 2000, pp. 133-135
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
Surgery
Journal title
ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND
The aim was to analyse the peer review process by comparing reports produce
d by referees selected by journal editors, with those of referees selected
by the authors of a scientific manuscript. Some 104 consecutive papers from
the UK submitted to the British Journal of Surgery (BJS) were included. Of
these, 102 were reviewed blind both by referees chosen by the journal edit
ors, and referees chosen by the paper's principal author, Manuscripts were
marked using a standard sheet for four basic aspects: originality, clinical
/scientific importance, clarity and analysis; a final overall recommendatio
n about possible publication was given. The time taken and the number of co
mpleted referee reports were similar in each group, Referees chosen by the
BJS editors were more critical (scored higher) of the submitted articles. M
ean scores for all domains were higher than for authors' referees, signific
antly for scientific importance (p=0.009) and decision to publish (p=0.029)
. In conclusion, reports produced by referees selected by BJS editors were
more critical than those chosen by authors of the papers. Authors might arg
ue that this reduced their chance of publication but constructive criticism
might improve the final article and assist editors to make decisions about
acceptance or rejection.