Making the first cut: An analysis of academic medicine editors' reasons for not sending manuscripts out for external peer review

Holly S. Meyer, Steven J. Durning, David P. Sklar, Lauren A. Maggio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose Manuscripts submitted to Academic Medicine (AM) undergo an internal editor review to determine whether they will be sent for external peer review. Increasingly, manuscripts are rejected at this early stage. This study seeks to inform scholars about common reasons for internal editor review rejections, increase transparency of the process, and provide suggestions for improving submissions.

Method A mixed-methods approach was used to retrospectively analyze editors' free-Text comments. Descriptive content analysis was performed of editors' comments for 369 manuscripts submitted between December 2014 and December 2015, and rejected prior to external peer review from AM. Comments were analyzed, categorized, and counted for explicit reasons for rejection.

Results Nine categories of rejection reasons were identified: ineffective study question and/ or design (338; 92%); suboptimal data collection process (180; 49%); weak discussion and/or conclusions (139; 37%); unimportant or irrelevant topic to the journal's mission (137; 37%); weak data analysis and/or presentation of results (120; 33%); text difficult to follow, to understand (89; 24%); inadequate or incomplete introduction (67; 18%); other publishing considerations (42; 11%); and issues with scientific conduct (20; 5%). Manuscripts had, on average, three or more reasons for rejection.

Conclusions Findings suggest that clear identification of a research question that is addressed by a well-designed study methodology on a topic aligned with the mission of the journal would address many of the problems that lead to rejection through the internal review process. The findings also align with research on external peer review.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)464-470
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume93
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2018
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.

Keywords

  • Journal: Academic Medicine
  • External Peer Review

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Making the first cut: An analysis of academic medicine editors' reasons for not sending manuscripts out for external peer review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this