 |
|
Prodding Tardy Reviewers
A Randomized Comparison of Telephone, Fax, and e-mail
Roy M. Pitkin, MD;
Leon F. Burmeister, PhD
JAMA. 2002;287:2794-2795.
Context To compare telephone, fax, and e-mail methods of prodding tardy reviewers.
Methods Randomized trial conducted January 1998 through June 1999 at the main editorial office of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Reviewers who had failed to file reviews by 28 days after being sent manuscripts (7 days after deadline) were sent identical messages in oral (telephone) or written (fax and e-mail) form inquiring as to the status of review, asking for its completion as soon as possible, and requesting it be sent by fax or e-mail.
Results Of 378 reviewers, proportions returning reviews within 7 days were essentially identical: telephone, 85 (68%) of 125; fax, 86 (67%) of 129; and e-mail, 84 (67%) of 124 (P = .59). In the two thirds who responded, the mean time to return reviews did not differ among the 3 groups.
Conclusion Contacting tardy reviewers resulted in a review being received within 7 days in about two thirds of cases, and it made no difference if the contact was made by telephone, fax, or e-mail.
Author Affiliations: Obstetrics & Gynecology, Washington, DC (Dr Pitkin); and College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City (Dr Burmeister).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey
Tite and Schroter
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is email a reliable means of contacting authors of previously published papers? A study of the Emergency Medicine Journal for 2001
O'Leary
Emerg. Med. J. 2003;20:352-353.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Our editorial process - some experiences and reflections
Emmelin and Wall
Scand J Public Health 2003;31:161-168.
Chapter 6: From Review to Publication
Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:81-99.
FULL TEXT
|
