How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions
B. J. Sweitzer and D. J. Cullen
Department of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114.
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.
