SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “MANUSCRIPTS”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed1998

Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.

CONTEXT: Quality of reviewers is crucial to journal quality, but there are usually too many for editors to know them all personally. A reliable method of rating them (for education and monitoring) is needed. OBJECTIVE: Whether editors' quality ratings of peer reviewers are reliable and how they compare with other performance measures. DESIGN: A 3.5-year prospective observational study. SETTING: Peer-reviewed journal. PARTICIPANTS: All editors and peer reviewers who reviewed at least 3 manuscripts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reviewer quality ratings, individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance, congruence between reviewer recommendation and editorial decision (decision congruence), and accuracy in reporting flaws in a masked test manuscript. INTERVENTIONS: Editors rated the quality of each review on a subjective 1 to 5 scale. RESULTS: A total of 4161 reviews of 973 manuscripts by 395 reviewers were studied. The within-reviewer intraclass correlation was 0.44 (P<.001), indicating that 20% of the variance seen in the review ratings was attributable to the reviewer. Intraclass correlations for editor and manuscript were only 0.24 and 0.12, respectively. Reviewer average quality ratings correlated poorly with the rate of recommendation for acceptance (R=-0.34) and congruence with editorial decision (R=0.26). Among 124 reviewers of the fictitious manuscript, the mean quality rating for each reviewer was modestly correlated with the number of flaws they reported (R=0.53). Highly rated reviewers reported twice as many flaws as poorly rated reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective editor ratings of individual reviewers were moderately reliable and correlated with reviewer ability to report manuscript flaws. Individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance and decision congruence might be thought to be markers of a discriminating (ie, high-quality) reviewer, but these variables were poorly correlated with editors' ratings of review quality or the reviewer's ability to detect flaws in a fictitious manuscript. Therefore, they cannot be substituted for actual quality ratings by editors.

Peer Review↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.

PURPOSE: To identify the characteristics of the manuscripts submitted to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (CJA) associated with their acceptance or rejection and to analyze the reviewers' comments and their impact on the editors' decision to publish. METHODS: Peer review material was analyzed from 213 submissions to the CJA. Characteristics of accepted and rejected manuscripts were compared. Reviewers' comments were classified according to editorial criteria used by the journal and the distribution of the different types of comments amongst accepted and rejected submissions was compared. RESULTS: Characteristics of 213 manuscripts and comments from 405 reviewers were analyzed. Overall, 57% of manuscripts submitted to the CJA were accepted. The type of research (study vs case report, clinical vs laboratory science) had no impact on the fate of the manuscripts; however, frequency of acceptance differed between articles originating from different geographic regions (P < 0.0001) with Canadian submissions posting the highest frequency (86%). Comment analysis suggests that the relationship between the experimental design, the results, and the conclusion was the main determinant of an article's fate. Lack of originality or inappropriate experimental design were likely to be associated with rejection. Conversely, aspects involving the presentation of manuscripts (tables, figures, references) were rarely cited as reasons to justify acceptance or rejection. CONCLUSION: Although articles are judged on many criteria, authors need to be aware that some aspects of a manuscript, namely the relationship between experimental design, results, and conclusions, the originality, and the use of an appropriate study design, are the most important features with regard to its acceptance or rejection.

Anesthesiology↗

PubMed1990

Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication.

This study investigated whether the gender of manuscript authors affected reviewers' editorial decisions. Female and male reviewers for five behavioral journals were asked to evaluate identical manuscripts according to their usual criteria. Half the manuscripts were supposedly written by men and half by women. Male reviewers did not evaluate male- and female-authored manuscripts differently. Female reviewers accepted significantly more female-authored (62%) than male-authored (10%) manuscripts. Female-authored manuscripts were accepted significantly more often by female (62%) than by male (21%) reviewers. Information unrelated to the quality of the manuscript appears to have influenced reviewers' decisions. Implications for the journal review process are discussed.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1994

Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality. SETTING: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine. DESIGN: Masked before-after study. MANUSCRIPTS: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993. MEASUREMENTS: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process). RESULTS: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.

Humans↗

PubMed1990

Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.

To determine whether authors of rejected manuscripts would evaluate the editorial review process less favorably than would authors of manuscripts accepted for publication, a questionnaire was sent to solicit evaluations of the quality of the reviews that had led to the rejection or acceptance of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatrics. Similar evaluations of the editor's letter were also sought. Authors were more likely to respond to the questionnaire if their manuscripts had been accepted and were more likely to complete the questionnaire thoroughly. Authors of accepted manuscripts evaluated the editor's communication more favorably than did the authors of manuscripts not accepted for publication, but the evaluations of the reviews were not significantly different. Most authors utilized the reviews to modify their manuscripts before submitting them to another journal.

Authorship↗

PubMed2002

Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending.

CONTEXT: Some journals routinely query potential referees before sending manuscripts ("askfirst"), whereas others just send manuscripts and allow referees to opt out ("justsend"). It is not known which protocol results in more completed reviews or shorter review time. METHODS: Trial to assess proportion of referee turndowns and length of review process, conducted at editorial office of Obstetrics & Gynecology and involving 283 consecutive qualifying manuscripts. For each, a referee was randomly assigned to askfirst (manuscript sent only after affirmative response within 3 days) and another to justsend (manuscript sent with request to review; could opt out). RESULTS: Only 64% of askfirst referees assented initially (15% declined [vs 8% for justsend, P =.008] and 21% failed to respond within 3 working days, necessitating a replacement). But once manuscript was mailed, mean time to file a review was significantly shorter for askfirst (21.0 vs 25.0 days, P<.001); thus, overall time to receipt of review did not differ significantly (24.7 vs 25.9 days, P =.19), nor did review quality (P =.39). CONCLUSION: Askfirst led to a higher rate of referee turndown than did justsend, but assenting askfirst referees completed reviews faster. The overall time for the review process did not differ between the 2 protocols.

Manuscripts, Medical as Topic↗

PubMed2000

The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal.

PURPOSE: The fate of research manuscripts that have been rejected by medical journals is of interest to authors, editors, and peer reviewers, but previous studies were conducted before the widespread availability of computerized literature searches. We update the previous investigations of the fate of rejected research manuscripts by using an electronic literature search and a larger sample, a longer follow-up, and more descriptive journal indexes. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we examined 350 manuscripts rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a general medical journal, during 1993 and 1994. We assessed the number of manuscripts that were published after initial rejection, time to eventual publication, journal type (general versus specialty), and journal impact factor (higher scores indicated greater impact) and immediacy index. RESULTS: Of 350 rejected manuscripts, 240 (69%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64% to 73%) were eventually published after a mean of 552 days (95% CI: 479 to 544 days, range 121 to 1, 792 days). Of 226 rejected research articles and reviews, 159 (70%, 95% CI: 64% to 76%) were subsequently published in specialty journals. During 1993 and 1994, the mean impact factor for articles published in the Annals was 9.60 (95% CI: 9.56 to 9.64), compared with a mean of 3.09 (95% CI: 2.80 to 3.37) for the journals in which the rejected articles were subsequently published (mean difference 6. 52, 95% CI: 6.24 to 6.81, P < 0.0001). The immediacy index was also lower for these journals. Time to publication had a weak negative correlation with the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published (correlation coefficient -0.15, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the manuscripts that were rejected from a large general medical journal were eventually published after an average of 18 months. Most were published in specialty journals with lower impact factor and immediacy index ratings.

Cohort Studies↗

PubMed2001

Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.

PURPOSE: Scientific journals rely on peer review to maintain the high quality and standards of papers accepted for publication. The purpose of this study was to explore the strengths and weaknesses of medical education reports by analyzing the ratings and written comments given by external reviewers. METHOD: The author conducted a content analysis of reviewers' comments on 151 research manuscripts submitted to the 1997 and 1998 Research in Medical Education conference proceedings. The negative comments on 123 manuscripts that received "questionable, probably exclude" or "definitely exclude" overall ratings from at least one reviewer were evaluated. A similar analysis was performed on reviewers' positive comments for 28 manuscripts recommended unanimously for acceptance. RESULTS: On average, four peers (4.1, SD = 0.97, range = 2-6) reviewed each manuscript. Of those recommended for exclusion, a mean of 2.3 reviewers recommended exclusion and each reviewer wrote a mean of 8.1 (SD = 5.7) reasons. The top ten reasons for rejection were: inappropriate or incomplete statistics; overinterpretation of results; inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation; sample too small or biased; text difficult to follow; insufficient problem statement; inaccurate or inconsistent data reported; incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature; insufficient data presented; and defective tables or figures. The main strengths noted in accepted manuscripts were the importance or timeliness of the problem studies, excellence of writing, and soundness of study design. CONCLUSION: While overstating the results and applying the wrong statistics can be fixed, other problems that the reviewers identified (ignoring the literature, designing poor studies, choosing inappropriate instruments, and writing poor manuscripts) are likely to be fatal flaws warranting rejection.

Curriculum↗

PubMed1992

[Medical manuscripts at the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo].

The Manuscript Collection of the Oriental institute was one of the richest collections of Oriental manuscripts on the Balkans. Among numerous manuscript from different fields, the field of medicine and the disciplines related to it contained 101 papers, out of which 61 were from the field of medicine, 13 from pharmacology, 19 from hygiene and 5 papers from the field of sexology. Those manuscripts were written over centuries in the wide areas of the East to serve as life manuals for the people all over the world. None of those medical manuscripts from that collection was preserved after a barbaric setting fire on the Oriental Institute. That is why this memory of the manuscripts that do not exist any more should serve as memento for future generations.

Academies and Institutes↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Medical manuscript of Mihail Plamenac, a priest].

It is known that collections of popular medical prescriptions and instructions appeared in areas without educated physicians, and all previously published manuscripts of this kind are inevitably anonymous. The reported manuscript comprises 23 pages written in sepia ink, appendixed to a prayer book published in 1747, containing popular medical instructions and prescriptions collected and practiced by orthodox priest Mihailo Plamenac in Montenegro at the turn of the 18th century. Mihailo Plamenac took an important part in historical events, as documented by numerous domestic historical data and several letters discovered in The Archives of Vienna. Being the only literate persons at the time, priests were both politicians and military officers, but they also offered medical services to the population. The manuscript comprises advices for various common emergencies (snake bites, urinary retention, contusions, fever, burns, eye injuries, rabies, otitis, traumatic wryneck) and diseases(impetigo, scabies, infertility, gastric ulcer, low back pain) as well as for certain poorly defined conditions (chest pain, abdominal discomfort). Besides medically fully adequate treatment, for example, the remedy against scabies containing sulfur, there are numerous examples of magic and ritual pagan elements, including famous medieval SATOR formula against rabies. Most of the herbs used in prescriptions have been identified: fig, dog rose, hyssop, leek, laurel, absinthe, rosemary, mallow, cypress, elder, endive, mangel, orache, ivy. The manuscript is the first manuscript undoubtedly attributed to a well known historical personality, as indicated in the first page of the manuscript: "This is a medical prayer book by Mihailo Plamenac, left to him by his ancestors."

History, 18th Century↗

PubMed1998

Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper.

CONTEXT: Biomedical manuscripts undergo substantive change as a result of the peer review and editorial revision processes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize quantitatively problems in manuscripts identified during peer review and changes made to address these problems. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive analysis of manuscripts submitted to and articles published by the Annals of Internal Medicine. A taxonomy of problems that occur in reporting clinical research was developed from analysis of changes made to 7 manuscripts between submission and publication (published October 15, 1996, and November 1, 1996). The taxonomy was used to characterize changes to 12 additional manuscripts (published January 15, 1997, to April 1, 1997). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Types of problems necessitating changes to manuscripts during peer review and revision. RESULTS: Changes occurred because of 5 types of problems: too much information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information, and structural problems. Changes most often occurred because information was missing or extraneous. The distribution of changes seemed to be influenced by the type of information involved (such as background or conclusions). CONCLUSION: The proposed framework may be useful for characterizing quantitatively the effects of peer review and for comparing those effects across editors, journals, and specialties.

Peer Review↗

PubMed1995

The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.

Peer review of submitted manuscripts is recognized as a critical component of the publication process in all major medical journals. It lends respectability and scientific credibility to those journals that have adopted the process [1]. This function is delegated to a group of persons who perform the task selflessly and without compensation. Of the many facets of the peer review process, the selection of manuscript reviewers and their subsequent interaction with both editors and authors may be so poorly understood by aspiring authors that certain misconceptions ensue. Authors of rejected manuscripts may fear that reviewers have acted in an arbitrary and possibly censorial fashion [2, 3]. Conversely, authors of accepted manuscripts who face a mountain of revisions may wonder if such an effort is likely to improve their manuscript [4, 5]. The following questions come to mind: Where do the reviewers come from? What do they do, and what constitutes a good reviewer? What power do they have? How is reviewer performance measured? Can the editor recognize publicly the good reviewer? Are reviewers really blinded? How does one become a good reviewer? Who will be the reviewers of the future? While looking at these questions, we should consider objective approaches of assessing reviewer quality and wonder whether they would improve the quality of the published manuscript.

Peer Review, Research↗

PubMed2006

Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of submitted manuscripts that are associated with acceptance for publication by major biomedical journals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of manuscripts reporting original research submitted to three major biomedical journals (BMJ and the Lancet [UK] and Annals of Internal Medicine [USA]) between January and April 2003 and between November 2003 and February 2004. Case reports on single patients were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication outcome, methodological quality, predictors of publication. RESULTS: Of 1107 manuscripts enrolled in the study, 68 (6%) were accepted, 777 (70%) were rejected outright, and 262 (24%) were rejected after peer review. Higher methodological quality scores were associated with an increased chance of acceptance (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 per 0.1 point increase in quality score; 95% CI, 1.16-1.67; P < 0.001), after controlling for study design and journal. In a multivariate logistic regression model, manuscripts were more likely to be published if they reported a randomised controlled trial (RCT) (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.21-4.80); used descriptive or qualitative analytical methods (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51-5.37); disclosed any funding source (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.01-3.60); or had a corresponding author living in the same country as that of the publishing journal (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14-3.46). There was a non-significant trend towards manuscripts with larger sample size (>/= 73) being published (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94-4.32). After adjustment for other study characteristics, having statistically significant results did not improve the chance of a study being published (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.34-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Submitted manuscripts are more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, RCT study design, descriptive or qualitative analytical methods and disclosure of any funding source, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal. Larger sample size may also increase the chance of acceptance for publication.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed1990

Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts.

To test the hypothesis that no important deficits would be identified on further review of accepted manuscripts, and that such manuscripts would be recommended for publication on rereview, we sent manuscripts that had been accepted for publication, after review and revision, for rereview by new referees who were unaware of the status of the manuscripts. Each review was evaluated independently by two assistant editors to determine whether substantive criticisms were identified by the new reviewers. The majority of manuscripts were thought by the new reviewers to have defects that warranted further revision, but the problems noted were often dissimilar. However, 80% of the manuscripts were recommended for publication and others were judged suitable for publication, although not at a high priority. The assistant editors frequently differed in their judgments whether a given criticism of a reviewer warranted further revision; nevertheless, there was infrequent disagreement regarding the basic decision for acceptance or rejection.

Pediatrics↗

PubMed2004

[The editorial handling of manuscripts submitted to Revista Médica de Chile].

This Editorial describes the steps followed by a manuscript when it is submitted to Revista Médica de Chile: its reception, format checking as requested in Instructions to Authors, and the editors' decision whether it is considered suitable for the purposes of this journal or not; the selection of peer reviewers, a direct contact with them to ask for their willingness to review this particular manuscript; an analysis by the editors of the reviewers' criticisms leading them to the decision of whether to accept it in the current version, or to return it to the authors with a request to prepare a new corrected version, or a definitive rejection; the editors' review of a corrected version (that may require again the opinion of the external reviewers) and the final decision to accept it or not; printing of the manuscript, two successive galley proofs reviewed by authors and editors; and the final printing of the journal with its simultaneous reproduction in the web page www.scielo.cl. Roughly 70% of the manuscripts are returned to the authors offering them the opportunity to resubmit a corrected version, 12% are definitively rejected and 20% are accepted in their first version. The mean time taken for an accepted manuscript since its first submission until it appears printed is currently 7.6 months. Having only part time editors and a time-limited secretarial staff efforts to shorten this time are difficult to implement, although electronic mail and fax are increasingly being used in this editorial process.

Chile↗

PubMed2005

Suggested statistical standards for NTT manuscripts: notes from two of your reviewers.

The purpose of a scientific paper in this journal is to persuade the reader of some important or potentially important facts. For a reader to be persuaded, first the manuscript reviewers must be persuaded, and if the manuscript involves statistical reasoning, at least one of those reviewers is likely to be a statistician. This invited article, by two long-time reviewers for Neurotoxicology and Teratology (NTT) who are also contributors of statistical papers, surveys some of the principles that render a manuscript more persuasive or less persuasive in our eyes. These principles are overwhelmingly not statistical but logical. For one typical NTT manuscript theme, the relation between some toxic exposure and one or more negative outcomes in humans, the aspects of manuscripts we scrutinize most closely include biological plausibility, dose-response relationships, breadth of evidence, adjustments for measurement bias, attention to assumptions and scatterplots in the search for confounds, and, in general, a sincere attempt to enunciate and then refute plausible hypotheses rival to the one the investigators prefer. The literature of excellent studies in other fields provides ample instances of good practice in these matters; we review it in those fields for applications in ours. Formal statistical significance testing plays almost no role in the most persuasive papers. In particular, findings that appear only after "adjustment for covariates" are never considered credible by these reviewers; we explain our reasons at length, and suggest alternatives.

Bias↗

PubMed1999

The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors that influence editors of scientific dental journals in deciding whether or not to publish submitted manuscripts and to determine if there is a consistent pattern for their decisions. DESIGN: The study was by a postal questionnaire. SETTING: The questionnaires were sent to editors of 50 major English language scientific dental journals in September 1996. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Respondents were asked to rank a number of frequently stated criteria for success in the production of papers. The editors were asked to suggest other factors which 'influenced their decision to accept or reject a manuscript'. Additionally they were asked to suggest factors that 'gave them most heartache', 'would make their life easier' and 'would expedite publication'. Information was sought on editorial policy regarding the use of referees. RESULTS: Forty two editors responded (84%). 6 replies were from journals regarded as 'generalist', and excluded from the final analysis. Factors which most frequently led to rejection included 'poor construction of the paper' (cited by 49% of respondents) and 'poor research design' (37%). Factors which editors valued highly were 'scientific novelty and timeliness of the topic' (29%). Factors that caused most problems were 'poor use of English and careless preparation of the manuscript' (46%). 'Attention to guide lines to authors' was cited by 68% of editors as a means of expediting publication. CONCLUSIONS: The application of these results can help authors to prepare manuscripts that are more attractive to editors of dental journals. Editors valued papers that were appropriate to the stated aims of their journal and regarded the significance and validity of the research work as the most important aspects of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Dental Research↗

PubMed1976

Writing in aphasia rehabilitation: cursive vs manuscript.

Reading and writing performance was observed in 30 adult aphasic patients to determine whether there was a significant difference when stimuli and manual responses were varied in the written form: cursive versus manuscript. Patients were asked to read aloud 10 words written cursively and 10 words written in manuscript form. They were then asked to write on dictation 10 words responses using cursive writing and 10 words using manuscript writing. Number of words correctly read, number of words correctly written, and number of letters correctly written in the proper sequence were tallied for both cursive and manuscript writing tasks for each patient. Results indicated no significant difference in correct response between cursive and manuscript writing style for these aphasic patients as a group; however, it was noted that individual patients varied widely in their success using one writing form over the other. It appeared that since neither writing form showed better facilitation of performance, the writing style used should be determined according to the individual patient's own preference and best performance.

Adult↗