This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stephen Lock, MD, MSc, FRCP; Jane Smith, MSc

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1341-1343.

Abstract
We conducted a prospective 9-month survey to assess the refereeing work load of British Medical Journal referees, and, in particular, to compare the work loads of pediatricians and psychiatrists. Referees completed a record form for each manuscript reviewed and a questionnaire on demographic characteristics and attitudes toward refereeing. Two hundred eleven referees formed a sample of one sixth of the British Medical Journal's active referees; all remaining pediatricians (n = 67) and psychiatrists (n = 65) formed two further samples. Of the 343 referees selected, 301 returned forms or questionnaires. One hundred forty-six referees were editors or on editorial boards. They reviewed for a mean of five journals. They reviewed 1980 manuscripts (a median of 6 for the main sample, 6.5 for the pediatricians, and 8 for the psychiatrists). Most manuscripts were reviewed for journals in the referee's own specialty; only one third were reviewed for other journals. Psychiatrists did significantly more work for general journals than pediatricians (13% vs 9%). All three groups spent less than 2 hours per manuscript.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1341-1343)

Author Affiliations
From the British Medical Journal, London, England.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to British Medical Journal, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR, England (Ms Smith).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals
Laine et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:1038-1040.
FULL TEXT  

How to get your paper published
Fried and Wechsler
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2001;121:S3-7.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
Black et al.
JAMA 1998;280:231-233.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multiple Blinded Reviews of the Same Two Manuscripts: Effects of Referee Characteristics and Publication Language
Nylenna et al.
JAMA 1994;272:149-151.
ABSTRACT  

An Editor's View: Living with Deadlines
Barton
J Hand Surg Eur Vol 1991;16:361-367.
 

Peer Review
Leung and Robson
JAMA 1990;264:3142-3142.
ABSTRACT