General Medical Journal Editors’ Views on Previous Peer-Review Reports
| 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%.