Article Figures & Data
Tables
Journal Editors’ Views Yes/Agree No. (%) No/Disagree No. (%) Indecisive No. (%) NA No. General statements of the history of a paper Would you like authors to indicate whether a paper has been previously submitted? 22 (45) 12 (24) 15 (31) 2 Would you like authors to indicate where a paper has been previously submitted? 15 (31) 15 (31) 19 (39) 2 General statements on previous submissions We would like to know from which journal(s) the peer reviews originate 28 (68) 7 (17) 6 (15) 10 We would like to see point-to-point response to the comments 32 (78) 6 (15) 3 (7) 10 Submission of previous peer reviews should be obligatory in the future 6 (15) 19 (46) 16 (39) 10 Submission of peer-review reports will have the following effect Decrease the number of commissioned reviewer reports to reach a decision for that specific paper 15 (37) 11 (26) 15 (37) 10 Decrease workload for the editorial team 15 (36) 17 (40) 10 (24) 9 Decrease workload for reviewers in general 20 (48) 11 (26) 11 (26) 9 Make submission processes more transparent 25 (60) 8 (19) 9 (21) 9 Decrease time to decision 17 (40) 12 (29) 13 (31) 9 -
NA = not applicable.
Note: Because of rounding of percentages, rows may add up to more than 100%.
-
- Table 2
Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Threats of Using Previous Peer-Review Reports With Next Submission, as Expressed by General Medical Journal Editors
Theme Strengths and Opportunities Weaknesses and Threats Scientific community Decrease workload for reviewers
Enhance review process as a whole
Improve transparency of reviewing processCreate lazy reviewers and editors
Prohibit manuscript to receive an objective fresh startQuality of papers Improve scientific quality of papers
Raise potential issues overlooked by new reviewers
Point editors a priori to strengths and limitationsIntroduce bias
Create reluctance of authors to submit unfavorable reviewsPublication process Have a shorter time to decision
Decrease workload for reviewers
Avoid duplication of effortsHave a longer time to decision
Submission management difficulties
Additional Files
The Article in Brief
Should Authors Submit Previous Peer-Review Reports When Submitting Research Papers? Views of General Medical Journal Editors
Jochen W. L. Cals , and colleagues
Background Publishing research can be time consuming, as papers are often submitted and reviewed by multiple journals before final acceptance. In this study, the authors assess the views of medical journal editors about whether attaching previous peer-review reports when submitting the paper to a different journal could decrease the workload for both reviewers and editors and could shorten the time from final draft to actual publication.
What This Study Found Among 51 general medical journals surveyed online, a quarter at least occasionally receive previous peer review reports from authors submitting manuscripts, and about one-half have an interest in the idea. Editors reported both pros and cons. They reasoned that including previous reviews may reduce reviewers' workload, improve transparency, prevent duplication of efforts, and shorten the decision process; however, they expressed concerns about the introduction of bias and reluctance of authors to submit unfavorable reviews. They also expressed concerns that the practice of using previous peer reports could create lazy reviewers and editors and prohibit the manuscript from receiving an objective fresh start.
Implications
- Editors of general medical journals have diverging views on the use of peer-review reports in submission of scientific papers.
- The authors call for debate on how to improve the peer-review system.
