Author perception of peer review

Mark Gibson, Catherine Y. Spong, Sara Ellis Simonsen, Sheryl Martin, James R. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)646-651
Number of pages6
JournalObstetrics and gynecology
Volume112
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Manuscripts
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Gibson, M., Spong, C. Y., Simonsen, S. E., Martin, S., & Scott, J. R. (2008). Author perception of peer review. Obstetrics and gynecology, 112(3), 646-651. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4

Author perception of peer review. / Gibson, Mark; Spong, Catherine Y.; Simonsen, Sara Ellis; Martin, Sheryl; Scott, James R.

In: Obstetrics and gynecology, Vol. 112, No. 3, 01.09.2008, p. 646-651.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gibson, M, Spong, CY, Simonsen, SE, Martin, S & Scott, JR 2008, 'Author perception of peer review', Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 646-651. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4
Gibson M, Spong CY, Simonsen SE, Martin S, Scott JR. Author perception of peer review. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2008 Sep 1;112(3):646-651. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4
Gibson, Mark ; Spong, Catherine Y. ; Simonsen, Sara Ellis ; Martin, Sheryl ; Scott, James R. / Author perception of peer review. In: Obstetrics and gynecology. 2008 ; Vol. 112, No. 3. pp. 646-651.
@article{2159b480018c4c8dba084f10a919d680,
title = "Author perception of peer review",
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.",
author = "Mark Gibson and Spong, {Catherine Y.} and Simonsen, {Sara Ellis} and Sheryl Martin and Scott, {James R.}",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "112",
pages = "646--651",
journal = "Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0029-7844",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Author perception of peer review

AU - Gibson, Mark

AU - Spong, Catherine Y.

AU - Simonsen, Sara Ellis

AU - Martin, Sheryl

AU - Scott, James R.

PY - 2008/9/1

Y1 - 2008/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=55949119018&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=55949119018&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4

DO - 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4

M3 - Article

C2 - 18757664

AN - SCOPUS:55949119018

VL - 112

SP - 646

EP - 651

JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0029-7844

IS - 3

ER -