HOW WELL DOES A JOURNALS PEER-REVIEW PROCESS FUNCTION - A SURVEY OF AUTHORS OPINIONS

Objective.-To evaluate the authors' satisfaction or dissatisfaction wi th the peer review process of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. Desi gn.-Anonymous questionnaires were sent to authors to survey their opin ions about specific aspects of the peer review process. Authors were g rouped by status of their manuscripts: AR (accept with revision), RR ( reject but may resubmit), and RO (reject outright). Participants.-Auth ors of unsolicited manuscripts submitted in 1991 to 1992. Main Outcome Measures.-Factors that determine authors' satisfaction with the relev ancy and benefit of peer review of their manuscript. Results.-Signific antly more authors of AR manuscripts responded to our survey than did authors of rejected manuscripts and viewed the review process more fav orably. Authors of AR manuscripts were more satisfied with specific as pects of the review process, which led to improvement in their manuscr ipts. More authors of RR manuscripts believed that our review process improved subsequent manuscript preparation than did authors of accepte d manuscripts. Conclusions.-The surveying of authors, important client s of the peer review process, should guide change necessary to better serve our authors and improve peer review.