Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine

J. C. Roberts, R. H. Fletcher and S. W. Fletcher
Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD 21224.

OBJECTIVE--To measure the effect of the peer review and editorial processes on the readability of original articles. DESIGN--Comparison of manuscripts before and after the peer review and editorial processes. SETTING--Annals of Internal Medicine between March 1 and November 30, 1992. MANUSCRIPTS--One hundred one consecutive manuscripts reporting original research. MEASUREMENTS--Assessment of readability by means of two previously validated indexes: the Gunning fog index (units of readability in the fog index roughly correlate to years of education) and the Flesch reading ease score. Each manuscript was analyzed for readability and length on receipt and after it had passed through the peer review and editorial processes. Text and abstracts were analyzed similarly but separately. Mean readability scores were compared by two-tailed t tests for paired observations. RESULTS--Mean (+/- SD) initial readability scores of manuscripts and abstracts by the Gunning fog index were 17.16 +/- 1.55 and 16.65 +/- 2.80, respectively. At publication, scores were 16.85 +/- 1.42 and 15.64 +/- 2.42 (P = .0005 and P < .0001 for before-after differences, respectively). By comparison, studies of other print media showed scores of about 11 for the New York Times editorial page and about 18 for a typical legal contract. Similar changes were found for the Flesch scores. The median length of the manuscripts increased by 2.6% and that of the abstracts by 4.2% during the processes. CONCLUSIONS--The peer review and editorial processes slightly improved the readability of original articles and their abstracts, but both remained difficult to read at publication. Better readability scores may improve readership.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Consent Form Readability and Educational Levels of Potential Participants in Mental Health Research
Christopher et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2007;58:227-232.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Readability of Notice of Privacy Forms Used by Major Health Care Institutions
Breese and Burman
JAMA 2005;293:1593-1594.
FULL TEXT  

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

Improving the Clarity of Journal Abstracts in Psychology: The Case for Structure
Hartley
Science Communication 2003;24:366-379.
ABSTRACT  

Readability of British and American medical prose at the start of the 21st century
Weeks and Wallace
BMJ 2002;325:1451-1452.
FULL TEXT  

Annals of Internal Medicine at Age 75: Reflections on the Past 25 Years
Huth and Case
ANN INTERN MED 2002;137:34-45.
FULL TEXT  

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effects of Technical Editing in Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review
Wager and Middleton
JAMA 2002;287:2821-2824.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Review Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed and Throwaway Journals
Rochon et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2853-2856.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Changes to Manuscripts During the Editorial Process: Characterizing the Evolution of a Clinical Paper
Purcell et al.
JAMA 1998;280:227-228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Can the Accuracy of Abstracts Be Improved by Providing Specific Instructions?: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Pitkin and Branagan
JAMA 1998;280:267-269.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:181-211.
ABSTRACT