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?

Joseph M. Garfunkel, MD; Edward E. Lawson, MD; Harvey J. Hamrick, MD; Martin H. Ulshen, MD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1376-1378.

Abstract
To determine whether authors of rejected manuscripts would evaluate the editorial review process less favorably than would authors of manuscripts accepted for publication, a questionnaire was sent to solicit evaluations of the quality of the reviews that had led to the rejection or acceptance of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatrics. Similar evaluations of the editor's letter were also sought. Authors were more likely to respond to the questionnaire if their manuscripts had been accepted and were more likely to complete the questionnaire thoroughly. Authors of accepted manuscripts evaluated the editor's communication more favorably than did the authors of manuscripts not accepted for publication, but the evaluations of the reviews were not significantly different. Most authors utilized the reviews to modify their manuscripts before submitting them to another journal.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1376-1378)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

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

Reprint requests to Journal of Pediatrics, CB #7230, Medical School Wing C, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7230 (Dr Garfunkel).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Kudos
Reider
Am J Sports Med 2008;36:2287-2288.
FULL TEXT  

Author Perception of Peer Review: Impact of Review Quality and Acceptance on Satisfaction
Weber et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2790-2793.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
ABSTRACT  

Inappropriate and Appropriate Selection of 'Peers' in Grant Review
Glantz and Bero
JAMA 1994;272:114-116.
ABSTRACT  

How Well Does a Journal's Peer Review Process Function? A Survey of Authors' Opinions
Sweitzer and Cullen
JAMA 1994;272:152-153.
ABSTRACT