Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 549–556 | Cite as

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

  • Claudine Turcotte
  • Pierre Drolet
  • Michel Girard
General Anesthesia

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Canadian Journal Editorial Board Peer Review Process Negative Comment Information Original 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Le devis de recherche, l’originalité et la cohérence générale des manuscrits soumis au Journal influencent leur acceptation ou leur rejet

Résumé

Objectif

Déterminer les caractéristiques des manuscrits, soumis au Journal canadien d’anesthésie (JCA), qui sont associées à leur acceptation ou à leur rejet et analyser les commentaires des réviseurs ainsi que leur influence sur la décision de publier.

Méthode

Le matériel soumis à l’examen des pairs a été analysé à partir de 213 textes envoyés au JCA. Les caractéristiques des manuscrits acceptés et rejetés ont été comparées. Nous avons classé les commentaires des réviseurs selon les critères de la rédaction utilisés par le journal et nous avons comparé la distribution des différents types de commentaires concernant les textes acceptés et rejetés.

Résultats

Les caractéristiques de 213 manuscrits et les commentaires de 405 réviseurs ont été analysés. Globalement, 57 % des manuscrits présentés au JCA ont été acceptés. Le type de recherche (étude vs observation de cas, science clinique vs science de laboratoire) n’avait pas d’impact sur le sort des manuscrits; cependant, la fréquence d’acceptation était différente entre les articles provenant de différentes régions géographiques (P < 0,0001), les articles canadiens étant les plus souvent acceptés (86 %). L’analyse des commentaires montre que la relation entre le devis expérimental, les résultats et la conclusion constitue le principal déterminant de l’avenir d’un article. Le manque d’originalité ou un devis expérimental inapproprié risquent d’être associés à un rejet. Par ailleurs, les aspects concernant la présentation des manuscrits (tableaux, figures, références) sont rarement cités pour justifier l’acceptation ou le rejet.

Conclusion

Les articles sont jugés selon de nombreux critères, mais les auteurs doivent savoir que certains aspects d’un texte, soit la relation entre le devis expérimental, les résultats et la conclusion, l’originalité et l’utilisation d’une méthodologie appropriée sont les plus importantes caractéristiques de l’acceptation ou du refus d’un manuscrit.

References

  1. 1.
    Feurer ID, Becker GJ, Picus D, Ramirez E, Darcy MD, Hicks ME. Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrument. JAMA 1994; 272: 98–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce goodquality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 422–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280: 231–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEARIME Committee. Review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 2001; 76: 897–978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bligh J. What happens to manuscripts submitted to the Journal? (Editorial) Med Educ 1998; 32: 567–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 1994; 272: 149–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cullen DJ, Macaulay A. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal. Acad Med 1992; 67: 856–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eckberg DL. When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science. Behav Brain Sci 1991; 14: 145–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eichorn P, Yankauer A. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 1011–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans JT, Nadjari HI, Burchell SA. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem. JAMA 1990; 263: 1353–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenfeld RM. The seven habits of highly effective data users (Editorial). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 118: 144–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Purcell GP, Donovan SL, Davidoff F. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process. Characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. JAMA 1998; 280: 227–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 443–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox R. Writing a case report: an editor’s eye view. Hosp Med 2000; 61: 863–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wright SM, Kouroukis C. Capturing zebras: what to do with a reportable case. CMAJ 2000; 163: 429–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vandenbroucke JP. In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 330–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Link AM. US and non-US submissions. An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998; 280: 246–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudine Turcotte
    • 1
  • Pierre Drolet
    • 1
  • Michel Girard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesia and Resuscitation, Maisonneuve-Rosemont HospitalUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations