PubMed · 835757
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Yankauer. 1977. Editor's report.. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.67.2.136
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
To deduce recommendations for authors which decrease the rejection probability we investigated retrospectively which reasons were mentioned in 1990 by the editorial board of the 'Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde' when it rejected original articles, reviews, clinical lessons and case reports, and whether length of the article, professional status of the first author, most relevant specialism and origin of the article influenced the rejection probability. Out of 547 articles 38% (208) were rejected; case reports were rejected most often (49%), reviews least often (33%). Peer review of original articles was the most thorough, of case studies the least. The most frequent reason for rejection in all categories was 'substantial shortcomings', particularly in the original articles (80%). Rejection of clinical lessons and case studies was relatively often due to criteria concerning the clinical message. Both rejected and accepted articles on average exceeded the length limit. Professional status and specialism were associated with a difference in rejection probability (chi 2, p less than 0.05). Specialists had the lowest rejection probability (31%). Nonspecialists benefited from specialist supervision. Articles originating from non-academic institutions were more often rejected than articles from academic centres. We advise authors to judge their articles by means of the criteria mentioned. Consultation of (methodological) experts, literature data bases, and (or) the editorial board can improve their chances. Non-specialists can benefit from the experience and expertise of specialists. In general, scientific attitude and willingness to alter the article according to editorial advice appear to have beneficial results.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We analyzed 121 articles published in this Journal in 1989. Papers were classified as "clinical experiences" (55%), "research articles" (31%), "public health" (10%) and "clinical laboratory" (4%). 79% of papers were elaborated in University institutions and 77% came from the area of Santiago. 23% of articles were published in the original version and 77% required rewriting by authors to comply with editorial board review. In each case, time between reception of the manuscript and acceptation for publication was 69 +/- 36 (SD) and 141 +/- 78 days, respectively. Reviewers used 35 +/- 19 days. Main observations from reviewers were: lengthy introduction (17%), unprecise statement of objective (16%), inadequate description of methods (17%) or of patient selection criteria (9%), inadequate discussion of results (19%) or unsupported conclusions (18%) and inappropriate statistical analysis (17%). The title was changed in order to make it more informative and shorter in 23%, tables were standardized in 17% and references in 24% of papers. Awareness of these findings may help authors improve their manuscripts and reduce editorial time.