Gibson, M; Spong, CY; Simonsen, SE; Martin, S; Scott, JR Author perception of peer review OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 112 (3): 646-651 SEP 2008

[Eugene Garfield]

E-mail Address: mark.gibson at hsc.ulah.edu 

Author(s): Gibson, M (Gibson, Mark); Spong, CY (Spong, Catherine Y.); 
Simonsen, SE (Simonsen, Sara Ellis); Martin, S (Martin, Sheryl); Scott, JR 
(Scott, James R.) 

Title: Author perception of peer review 

Source: OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 112 (3): 646-651 SEP 2008 

Language: English 

Document Type: Article 

Keywords Plus: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; QUALITY; MANUSCRIPTS; 
ACCEPTANCE; FEEDBACK; EDITORS; IMPACT 
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To survey authors submitting manuscripts to a leading 
specialty journal regarding their assessment of editorial review. The 
study sought factors affecting authors' satisfaction and whether authors 
rated the journal review processes differently from the commentary 
provided by different reviewers.
METHODS: Participation in an online survey was offered to 445 
corresponding authors of research manuscripts submitted consecutively 
during a 7-month period. All manuscripts received full editorial review. 
The survey instrument asked authors to rate six aspects of editorial 
comments from each of two to four reviewers and three aspects of the 
review process. in addition, the survey queried overall satisfaction and 
likelihood of submission of future manuscripts based on review experience.
RESULTS: Higher ratings for overall satisfaction with manuscript review 
were given by authors of accepted compared with rejected manuscripts (98% 
compared with 80%, P<.001). Authors rated processes for submission and 
review more highly than editorial commentary (88% compared with 69%, 
P<.001), and this difference was greater among authors of rejected 
manuscripts. The extent to which reviewers focused on important aspects of 
submitted manuscripts received the lowest ratings from authors. Authors' 
ratings of reviewers' comments differentiated between reviewers and did 
not correlate with ratings of reviews by the journal's senior editors.
CONCLUSION: Author feedback was more favorable among authors of accepted 
manuscripts, and responses differentiated among aspects of editorial 
review and reviewers. Author feedback may provide a means for monitoring 
and improvement of processes for editorial review and reviewer commentary. 

Addresses: [Gibson, Mark] Univ Utah, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sch Med, Salt 
Lake City, UT 84132 USA; NICHHD, Pregnancy & Perinatol Branch, NIH, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 USA; Univ Utah, Dept Family & Prevent Med, Sch Med, 
Publ Hlth Program, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 USA 

Reprint Address: Gibson, M, Univ Utah, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sch Med, 30 
N 1900 E,Room 2B200, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 USA. 

E-mail Address: mark.gibson at hsc.ulah.edu 

Cited Reference Count: 14 

Times Cited: 0 

Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS 

Publisher Address: 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA 

ISSN: 0029-7844 

29-char Source Abbrev.: OBSTET GYNECOL 

ISO Source Abbrev.: Obstet. Gynecol. 

Source Item Page Count: 6 

Subject Category: Obstetrics & Gynecology 

ISI Document Delivery No.: 347YZ 

CALLAHAM M
Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated 
with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 : 2847 2002 

CALLAHAM ML
Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and 
performance 
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE 32 : 318 1998 

CALLAHAM ML
Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of 
manuscripts 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 : 229 1998 

CALLAHAN ML
Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews - Two 
tandomized trials 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 : 2781 2002 

GARFIELD E
The history and meaning of the journal impact factor 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 295 : 90 2006 

GARFUNKEL JM
EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION ON THE AUTHORS EVALUATION OF PEER-REVIEW 
OF MEDICAL MANUSCRIPTS 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 263 : 1376 1990 

JEFFERSON T
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical 
studies 
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS : ARTN MR000016 2007 

JEFFERSON T
Measuring the quality of editorial peer review 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 : 2786 2002 

JUSTICE AC
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? - A randomized 
controlled trial 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 : 240 1998 

KORNGREEN A
Peer-review system could gain from author feedback 
NATURE 438 : 282 DOI 10.1038/438282d 2005 

LANDKROON AR
Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument 
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 108 : 979 2006 

SCHROTER S
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial 
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 328 : 673 2004 

VANROOYEN S
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review - A 
randomized trial 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 : 234 1998 

WEBER EJ
Author perception of peer review - Impact of review quality and acceptance 
on satisfaction 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 : 2790 2002