Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:37:54.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peer review and editorial decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2018

Louise Howard  and
Greg Wilkinson
Louise Howard*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London
Greg Wilkinson
Affiliation:
University Department of Psychiatry, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool
*
Dr Louise Howard, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

This paper describes and analyses the editor's decision-making process at the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), and investigates the association between reviewers' assessments and editorial decisions.

Method

Four hundred consecutive manuscripts submitted over a six-month period to the BJP were examined prospectively for assessors' comments and editorial decisions on acceptance or rejection. Interrater reliability of assessments was calculated and a logistic regression analysis investigated the effect of the rank allocated by assessors and the comprehensiveness of the assessments on the editor's decision.

Results

The editor sent 248/400 (62%) manuscripts to assessors for peer review. Kappa for reliability of assessors' rankings was 0.1 indicating poor interrater reliability. Assessors agreed best on whether to reject a paper. A ranking of five (indicating rejection) had the greatest association with editor's rejection (P < 0.001, odds ratio 0.079), and the mean ranking of assessments was also significantly associated with editorial acceptance or rejection (P=0.004, odds ratio 0.24)

Conclusion

Assessors and editors tend to agree on what is clearly not acceptable for publication but there is less agreement on what is suitable.

Type
Papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 173 , Issue 2 , August 1998 , pp. 110 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

See invited commentaries pp. 114–115. this issue.

Declaration of interest

The second author is Editor of the BJP.

References

Abby, M., Massey, M. D., Galanduk, S., et al (1994) Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 105–107.Google Scholar
Aitman, D. G. (1991) Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F. (1991) The predictive validity of peer review: a neglected issue, Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 14, 138–139.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119–186.Google Scholar
Crandall, R. (1991) What should be done to improve reviewing? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 143.Google Scholar
Feurer, I. D., Becker, G. J. Ficus, D., et al (1994) Evaluating peer reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 98–100.Google Scholar
Frank, E. (1996) Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. Preventive Medicine, 25, 102–104.Google Scholar
Howard, L. M. & Wilkinson, G. (1997) Impact factors of psychiatric journals. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 109–112.Google Scholar
Kiesler, C. (1991) Confusion between reviewer reliability and bad/wise editorial and funding decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 151–152.Google Scholar
Lock, D. & Smith, J. (1990) What do peer reviewers do? Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1341–1343.Google Scholar
Lock, S. (1985) A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.Google Scholar
McNutt, R., Evans, A., Fletcher, R., et al (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1371–1376.Google Scholar
Persaud, R. (1995) Peering into peer review. Psychiatric Bulletin, 19, 529–531.Google Scholar
Ptarie, J. P., Walvoort, H. C. & Overbeke, A. J. (1996) Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet, 348, 1480–1483.Google Scholar
Sagten, P. O. (1997) Why the impact factor should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal. 314, 498–502.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (1990) Journalology – or what editors do. British Medical Journal. 301, 756–759.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1997) Peer review: reform or revolution? British Medical Journal, 315, 759–760.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1998) Unscientific practice flourishes in medicine. British Medical Journal, 316, 1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrer, P. (1991) Chairman's action: the importance of executive decisions in peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 164–165.Google Scholar
Weller, A. C. (1990) Editorial peer review in US medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association. 263, 1344–1347.Google Scholar
Wessely, S. (1996) What do we know about peer review? Psychological Medicine, 26, 883–886.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. B. (1978) Peer review and publication. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 61, 1697–1701.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.