You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 272 No. 2, July 13, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Perspectives on Peer Review
 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
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

How Well Does a Journal's Peer Review Process Function?

A Survey of Authors' Opinions

Bobbie Jean Sweitzer, MD; David J. Cullen, MD, MS

JAMA. 1994;272(2):152-153.


Abstract

Objective.
—To evaluate the authors' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the peer review process of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia.

Design.
—Anonymous questionnaires were sent to authors to survey their opinions about specific aspects of the peer review process. Authors were grouped by status of their manuscripts: AR (accept with revision), RR (reject but may resubmit), and RO (reject outright).

Participants.
—Authors of unsolicited manuscripts submitted in 1991 to 1992.

Main Outcome Measures.
—Factors that determine authors' satisfaction with the relevancy and benefit of peer review of their manuscript.

Results.
—Significantly more authors of AR manuscripts responded to our survey than did authors of rejected manuscripts and viewed the review process more favorably. Authors of AR manuscripts were more satisfied with specific aspects of the review process, which led to improvement in their manuscripts. More authors of RR manuscripts believed that our review process improved subsequent manuscript preparation than did authors of accepted manuscripts.

Conclusions.
—The surveying of authors, important clients of the peer review process, should guide change necessary to better serve our authors and improve peer review.

(JAMA. 1994;272:152-153)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.


Footnotes

Presented in part at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, September 10, 1993.

Address correspondence to the Department of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114 (Dr Cullen).



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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The JAMIA Student Editorial Board: Peer Review Education in Biomedical Informatics
Johnson and Miller
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2004;11:87-88.
FULL TEXT  

The JAMIA Student Editorial Board: Peer Review Education in Biomedical Informatics
Johnson and Miller
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11:87-88.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1994 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.