Evaluation of the quality and subsequent performance of manuscripts rejected by Clinical Rheumatology: a research report.
Editorial policies
Journal impact factor
Manuscripts, medical as topic*
Peer review, research
Publishing/statistics & numerical data*
Rheumatology/statistics & numerical data
Journal
Clinical rheumatology
ISSN: 1434-9949
Titre abrégé: Clin Rheumatol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8211469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
27
04
2022
accepted:
06
06
2022
revised:
21
05
2022
pubmed:
14
6
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
entrez:
13
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal. This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests. In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance. Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35698009
doi: 10.1007/s10067-022-06238-4
pii: 10.1007/s10067-022-06238-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2541-2551Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR).
Références
Schlesinger N, Sloan VS, Panush RS (2022) Numb from rejection: academic publishing is not for the faint-hearted. J Rheumatol 49(5):540–541. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.211140
doi: 10.3899/jrheum.211140
pubmed: 35491016
Richmond BK, Welsh D (2021) Education, ethics, and history: the peer review process in the US. J Am Coll Surg 233(3):480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.05.025
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.05.025
pubmed: 34062244
Bornmann L (2011) Scientific peer review. Annu Rev Info Sci Technol 45:197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
doi: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
SJR Scimago Journal & Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/ . Accessed 4 Feb 2022
Barajas-Ochoa A, Ramos-Remus C (2021) Analysis of the linguistic strengths and weaknesses of abstracts submitted to the XLIX Mexican Congress of Rheumatology. Reumatologia clinica, S2173-5743(21)00163-5. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reumae.2021.09.001
Netzel R, Perez-Iratxeta C, Bork P, Andrade MA (2003) The way we write. EMBO Rep 4(5):446–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.embor833
doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.embor833
pubmed: 12728240
pmcid: 1319188
Springer. Clinical Rheumatology. https://www.springer.com/journal/10067/ . Accessed 12 Mar 2022
Spinger. Clinical Rheumatology submission guidelines. https://www.springer.com/journal/10067/submission-guidelines . Accessed 2 Mar 2022
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 147(8):573–577. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH (1994) Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 121(1):11–21. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
pubmed: 8198342
The EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/ . Accessed 4 Feb 2022
Araújo CG (2014) Detail the writing of scientific manuscripts: 25-30 paragraphs. Braz Arch Cardiol 102(2):e21–e23. https://doi.org/10.5935/abc.20140019
doi: 10.5935/abc.20140019
Heßler N, Rottmann M, Ziegler A (2020) Empirical analysis of the text structure of original research articles in medical journals. PLoS ONE 15(10):e0240288. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240288
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240288
pubmed: 33031425
pmcid: 7544105
Clarivate. Web of Ciences. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/my/sign-out . Accessed 26 Mar 2020
Altmetric. https://www.altmetric.com/ . Accessed 23 Mar 2022
Harpe SE (2015) How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 7(6):836–850. ISSN 1877-1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001
doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001
United Nations. Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. Regional groups of Member States. https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/regional-groups . Accesed 6 Mar 2022
Byrne DW (2000) Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: a survey of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor 23;2:39-44. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v23n2p039-044.pdf
Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO (2021) A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 6(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
doi: 10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
pubmed: 34776003
pmcid: 8591820
Mannocci A, Saulle R, Colamesta V, D’Aguanno S, Giraldi G, Maffongelli E, Meggiolaro A, Semyonov L, Unim B, La Torre G (2015) What is the impact of reporting guidelines on Public Health journals in Europe? The case of STROBE, CONSORT and PRISMA. J Public Health (Oxford, England) 37(4):737–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu108
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu108
McErlean M, Samways J, Godolphin PJ, Chen Y (2022) The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review. Irish J Med Sci 1–8. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-022-02955-6
Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F (2000) The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med 109(2):131–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00450-2
doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00450-2
pubmed: 10967154
Nemery B (2001) What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine? Occup Environ Med 58(9):604–607. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.58.9.604
doi: 10.1136/oem.58.9.604
pubmed: 11511748
pmcid: 1740190
Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE (2007) The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. Am J Ophthalmol 143(4):551–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004
pubmed: 17276380
Wijnhoven BP, Dejong CH (2010) Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery. Br J Surg 97(3):450–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6880
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6880
pubmed: 20099256
Holliday EB, Yang G, Jagsi R, Hoffman KE, Bennett KE, Grace C, Zietman AL (2015) Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.003
pubmed: 25835616
Okike K, Kocher MS, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M (2012) The fate of manuscripts rejected by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg (Am Vol) 94(17):e130. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00078
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00078
Zoccali C, Amodeo D, Argiles A, Arici M, D’arrigo G, Evenepoel P, Fliser D, Fox J, Gesualdo L, Jadoul M, Ketteler M, Malyszko J, Massy Z, Mayer G, Ortiz A, Sever M, Vanholder R, Vinck C, Wanner C, Więcek A (2015) The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts. Nephrol Dial Transplant 30(12):1947–1950. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv387
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv387
pubmed: 26597920
pmcid: 4833001
Cejas C (2017) Analysis of the revision process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: metrics of rejected manuscripts and their final disposition. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(6):1181–1184. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17631
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17631
pubmed: 28350482
Earnshaw CH, Edwin C, Bhat J, Krishnan M, Mamais C, Somashekar S, Sunil A, Williams SP, Leong SC (2017) An analysis of the fate of 917 manuscripts rejected from Clinical Otolaryngology. Clin Otolaryngol 42(3):709–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12820
doi: 10.1111/coa.12820
pubmed: 28032954
Karpińska A (2020) Innovation and science dilemmas. Unintended consequences of innovation policy for science. Polish experience, Cogent Social Science 6:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1718055
National Research Council (US) Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences. Sharing publication-related data and materials: responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2003. 2, The Purpose of Publication and Responsibilities for Sharing. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97153/
Barajas-Ochoa A, Barajas-Ochoa Z, Ramos-Remus C (2019) Análisis bibliométrico de las revistas médicas del Sistema de Clasificación de Revistas Mexicanas de Ciencia y Tecnología. Gaceta medica de Mexico 155(3):258–265. 10.24875/GMM.19005030
Springer. Common reasons for rejection. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/what-is-open-access/10285582 . Accessed 3 Apr 2022
SpringerNature. Peer reviewers. https://www.springernature.com/gp/reviewers ). Accessed 3 April 2022
Willey. Resources for writing your paper. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/Prepare/writing-resources.html. Accessed 3 Apr 2022
BMJ Author Hub. Writing and formatting. https://authors.bmj.com/writing-and-formatting/ . Accessed 3 April 2022
Kislov R (2018) Selective permeability of boundaries in a knowledge brokering team. Public Adm 96(4):817–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12541
doi: 10.1111/padm.12541
pubmed: 30774155
pmcid: 6360461
Savolainen R (2015) Cognitive barriers to information seeking: a conceptual analysis. J Inf Sci 41(5):613–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587850
doi: 10.1177/0165551515587850
Ho E, Hagmann D, Loewenstein G (2020) Measuring information preferences. Manag Sci 67(1):126–145. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3543
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3543
Zafon. Carlos Ruiz Zafon. https://www.carlosruizzafon.co.uk/titles/carlos-ruiz-zafon/the-labyrinth-of-the-spirits/9781474606233/ . Accessed 12 Apr 2022
Writers write. Richard N. Patterson. https://www.writerswrite.co.za/literary-birthday-22-february-richard-north-patterson/ . Accessed 3 Apr 2022
Pronin E (2007) Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends Cogn Sci 11(1):37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001
pubmed: 17129749
Rothman NB, Pratt MG, Rees L, Vogus TJ (2017) Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Acad Manag Ann 11(1):33–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0066
doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0066
Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. https://franklloydwright.org/ . Accessed 5 Apr 2022