Title: What happens to manuscripts submitted to the Journal?
Abstract: Medical EducationVolume 32, Issue 6 p. 567-570 Free Access What happens to manuscripts submitted to the Journal? First published: 04 January 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00315.xCitations: 8AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat `A true critic ought to dwell rather upon excellencies than imperfections, to discover the concealed beauties of a writer, and communicate to the world such things as are worth their observation.' Joseph Addison, writing in The Spectator in 1712. For both editorial staff and authors, the selection of articles for journal publication is a key quality issue. This paper outlines the process used by Medical Education and describes the operation of the new peer review system we have recently established. Prospective authors will find it useful as it explains the progress of each paper received by the journal. Readers will find it helpful to know how journal articles have been selected for publication. Manuscripts submitted to Medical Education enter a two-stage review process. Initially, they are read by the editor and assessed for quality, relevance and style. One or more of the associate editors may also read manuscripts as they are received. A small number of manuscripts may be rejected at this stage. Having passed this first scrutiny, manuscripts enter the second phase – peer review. During this stage the manuscript is evaluated by the author's `peers'. These are experts who have both knowledge and experience of the manuscript topic. In addition, some manuscripts may require expert statistical review. The process of editorial and peer review is confidential and reviewers are reminded of both this, and other responsibilities, each time they receive a manuscript. They are also asked to declare any conflict of interest that could bias their opinion. After completion of these stages, manuscripts may be returned to authors with suggestions for improvement through amendment, or be rejected. Many manuscripts are accepted for publication subject to appropriate amendment. When this happens, the editorial team request authors to indicate how they have responded to the reviewers' comments. Occasionally, papers are returned to authors with a request for revision that does not necessarily guarantee acceptance. Such papers are then re-assessed before final decisions are made. Occasionally, papers based on opinion are accepted through editorial review alone but all papers that describe original research, and other major articles intended for one of the `departments' in the journal, almost always undergo peer and statistical review, and amendment before acceptance for publication. Very few papers are accepted without further amendment. It is useful for prospective authors to be aware of these steps in the publication cycle, especially those relating to reviewers' comments and subsequent amendments. Adhering to the `Guidelines for Authors' greatly speeds up the decision-making process. This is part of the quality assurance cycle of journal publication and usually results in a stronger, more easily read, better organized and better structured paper. Purcell, Donovan & Davidoff (1998) recently reviewed changes made to papers submitted to a leading North American medical journal. They found five types of problem: too much information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information, and problems of structure or of organization. Changes were requested most often because of missing information, particularly in the introduction or conclusions to the paper. All decisions about acceptance or rejection rest with the editor and not with reviewers. In this decision-making process reviewers play an advisory role. Both editorial decisions and evaluation by reviewers are based upon the twin criteria of importance and quality. Other factors may also influence the decision to accept or reject a particular manuscript, including, for example, the page length of a particular issue, or the recent publication of similar articles. What makes a good reviewer? There is little evidence to help clarify this question, but available evidence suggests that a wide range of variation exists. Less than 10% of this variance can be accounted for by age, training in epidemiology or statistics and being currently involved in active research ( Black et al. 1998 ). All editors appreciate speedy return of reviewers' comments (within 2 weeks if possible). Comments about manuscripts should be constructive and in a form that can be returned to authors for further consideration. Such comments should ideally refer to the strengths of the paper in terms of its importance, its relevance to medical teachers and researchers, whether it presents new information and if it will be of interest to readers. Suggestions to improve these areas should be made using references both from within the manuscript and, if appropriate, from the relevant literature ( McNutt et al. 1990 ). Quality issues, such as the design and methods used in research papers, appropriate data analysis techniques and the conclusions drawn from the results, are also important. Sandra Goldbeck-Wood from the British Medical Journalhas written that idealism lies at the heart of good reviewing. In her view, the best reviews `combine a critical eye with a positive, creative attitude aimed at helping fellow researchers. The best reviewers concentrate on offering useful advice to authors rather than giving summary judgements to editors' ( Goldbeck-Wood 1998). At Medical Education, reviewers are asked to complete two forms. One is to be returned to authors and may be signed by reviewers should they wish to do so. The second form is for confidential comments to the editor. Reviewers are asked to comment on the originality, reliability, educational importance, and overall suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal. Specific criticisms and suggestions rather than generalities are always more welcome on this form. We are now operating a feedback system for reviewers. Copies of reviewer's comments are circulated between them after editorial decisions have been made. Figure 1 shows the recently introduced form we are using for peer review comments. The selection and number of reviewers are matters for the editor, and since the third issue of volume 32 we have been using up to three reviewers for those papers entering the second phase of the review process. A 1995 survey of 221 North American medical journal editors found that just over half (51%) of respondents thought three reviewers was the ideal number, with slightly fewer respondents (41%) favouring the use of two ( Wilkes & Kravitz 1995). Reviewers are selected on the basis of the extent of their knowledge and experience in the area of the manuscript. If possible, at least one reviewer is drawn from the country of origin of the paper, and another reviewer is selected who can give an international perspective. They are usually drawn from our database of reviewers and occasionally may be members of the editorial board. The editor's knowledge of experts in a particular field is frequently used to select a reviewer or, on occasion, they may be selected from the manuscript's reference list. We have also conducted literature searches to identify appropriately qualified individuals for specific areas. We have recently introduced procedures to conceal the identity of authors. This is achieved by removing the title page of each manuscript and masking, if necessary, further detail in the text. How effective this procedure is in reducing bias is far from clear. It is often difficult to achieve satisfactory masking by the method we use and it is also time-consuming. Although masking has not been shown to be conclusive in the improvement of review quality, it does give the appearance of fairness ( Cho et al. 1998 ; Justice et al. 1998 ). We will continue to monitor progress in this area. We are receiving an increasing number of manuscripts that describe research based on qualitative methods. Reviewing these manuscripts can be a difficult task, especially for reviewers more familiar with biomedical, quantitative methods of investigation. We are steadily increasing our pool of specialist reviewers for papers using qualitative methods and have introduced guidelines to assist reviewers in this very important area of medical education research. Table 1 shows the questions that are used to frame an evaluation of manuscripts in this category. A more detailed version of the questions can be seen in the original papers by Mary Boulton and Ray Fitzpatrick (Boulton, Fitzpatrick & Swinburn 1996). The peer review process has been increasingly criticized in recent years ( Wilkes 1997), frequently because there is so little evidence about the effectiveness of the process. On one side of the equation there are concerns about the influence of cronyism on bias and delay, on the difficulty new ideas might have in gaining recognition when reviewed by conservative (or out-of-date) reviewers, and about the costs involved. Such concerns apply not only in the medical field. For example, the American author Whitney Balliet observed that `a critic is a bundle of biases held loosely together by a sense of taste'. Most of us would agree, however, that when it works well, the peer review process protects readers from substandard papers ( Goldbeck-Wood 1998), improves their readability and helps editors to make decisions relating to acceptance and rejection. Amongst North American medical editors nearly half (48%) reported that, for more than 90% of the time, reviewers' comments were the sole criterion on which they based their decision to accept or reject a paper ( Cho et al. 1998 ). In my experience as an author who has submitted to the peer review process many times, the comments of some reviewers can be intensely irritating. Most reviewers, however, offer constructive comments and are usually correct in their judgements. The Irish novelist George Moore summed up the difficulties facing journal reviewers when he wrote that `the lot of critics is to be remembered by what they have failed to understand'. As an editor, I am extremely grateful to those reviewers who write to me giving clear and constructive comments for authors and make balanced judgements about the worth of a paper. An editor's principal function is to educate and inform the readership of the journal. An author's principal function is to write a clear and accurate account of an appropriate message in a form that is suitable for their intended audience. The English author D. H. Lawrence once wrote `Never trust the artist. Trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it'. When both sides agree on the importance of the message and on its presentation, the task of publication is so much easier. John Bligh References 1 Black N, Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? Journal of the American Medical Association 280 , 231 3. 2 Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R, Swinburn C (1996) Qualitative research in health care: II. A structured review and evaluation of studies . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2 , 171 9. 3 Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA et al. ( 1998) Masking author identity in peer review. What factors influence masking success? Journal of the American Medical Association 280 , 243 5. 4 Goldbeck-Wood S (1998) What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? British Medical Journal 3 , 86. 5 Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA et al. ( 1998) Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? Journal of the American Medical Association 280 , 240 2. 6 McNutt R, Evans A, Fletcher R, Fletcher S (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 , 1371 7. 7 Purcell GP, Donovan SL, Davidoff F (1998) Changes made to manuscripts during the editorial process. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 , 227 8. 8 Wilkes MS (1997) The public dissemination of medical research: problems and solutions . Journal of Health Communication 2 , 3 15. 9 Wilkes MS & Kravitz RL (1995) Policies, practices and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. Journal of General Internal Medicine 10 , 443 50. Citing Literature Volume32, Issue6November 1998Pages 567-570 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Publication Year: 1998
Publication Date: 1998-11-01
Language: en
Type: editorial
Indexed In: ['crossref', 'pubmed']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 9
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot