Editorial peer review: methodology and data collection.

Abstract

This study reports on the editorial peer review practices of two categories of U.S. medical journals indexed in Index Medicus. Journals in group 1 were included on each of three lists of recommended journals, had a circulation of 10,000, and were cited at least 5,000 times per year. Group 2 journals, also indexed in Index Medicus, met none of the criteria. After being pretested, data were collected through a series of interviews and questionnaires. A summary of the methodology and an analysis of the differences between data collected through questionnaires and interviews is reported. The study concluded that initial interviews are very helpful in designing a questionnaire; a high percentage of editors agreed to be interviewed (100% for sixteen group 1 editors and 93.8% for sixteen group 2 editors); a 69.4% response rate to the mailed questionnaire indicates either sufficient follow-up or a high rate of interest in the subject matter; no trends identified by the questionnaire were reversed by changes in answers given during the interviews; approximately 11% to 15% of the answers differed between the questionnaire and interview methodology; and for some sensitive issues, editors were more likely to give answers on the questionnaire according to what was perceived as the most appropriate answer, rather than the actual practices of the journal.