Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache

被引:26
作者
Hesterman, Chelsea M. [1 ]
Szperka, Christina L. [2 ,3 ]
Turner, Dana P. [4 ]
机构
[1] UCLA, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Neurol, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Dept Neurol, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Div Neurol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Anesthesia Crit Care & Pain Med, Boston, MA 02114 USA
来源
HEADACHE | 2018年 / 58卷 / 10期
关键词
publication; peer review; manuscript rejection; DECISION-MAKING; PUBLICATION; GROWTH; FATE;
D O I
10.1111/head.13343
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective-To identify and characterize the reasons manuscripts are rejected after peer review from the journal Headache. Background-Numerous editorials, reviews, and research manuscripts have been published on the topic of manuscript rejection. However, few of these papers evaluate the reasons for rejection after peer review systematically. None are specific to the field of neurology or headache medicine. Methods-A retrospective analysis of all submissions to Headache from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was performed. Peer reviewer and editor comments for each manuscript were reviewed, and unlimited reasons for rejection were coded for each manuscript. Detailed reasons for rejection were then grouped into 9 broader categories. Results-A total of 784 submissions were received from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 336 were immediately rejected and 434 went on to peer review. During this period, the overall rejection rate was 62.6% and the rejection rate after peer review was 35.7%. The 6 most common reasons for rejection after peer review were: flaws in methodology and study design, poor reporting of methodology, poor statistical analysis, overstatement of conclusions, problems with covariates or outcomes, and problems with the control or case group. Conclusion-Flaws in methodology and study design were the most common reasons for rejection after peer review from Headache between 2014-2016.
引用
收藏
页码:1511 / 1518
页数:8
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology [J].
Armstrong, April W. ;
Idriss, Shereene Z. ;
Kimball, Alexandra B. ;
Bernhard, Jeffrey D. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY, 2008, 58 (04) :632-635
[2]   Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports [J].
Bordage, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2001, 76 (09) :889-896
[3]  
Byrne DW, 2000, Sci Ed, V23, P39
[4]   Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it? [J].
Dogra, Sunil .
INDIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY VENEREOLOGY & LEPROLOGY, 2011, 77 (02) :123-127
[5]   Publication Productivity and Experience: Factors Associated with Academic Rank Among Orthopaedic Surgery Faculty in the United States [J].
Ence, Andrew K. ;
Cope, Seth R. ;
Holliday, Emma B. ;
Somerson, Jeremy S. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2016, 98 (10) :e41
[6]   Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals [J].
Ezeala, C. C. ;
Nweke, I. N. ;
Ezeala, M. O. .
ANNALS OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH, 2013, 3 (03) :376-379
[7]   How to get your paper published [J].
Fried, PW ;
Wechsler, AS .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2001, 121 (04) :S3-S7
[8]   Why We Say No! A Look Through the Editor's Eye [J].
Garg, Aarti ;
Das, Sunanda ;
Jain, Hemant .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2015, 9 (10) :JB01-JB05
[9]  
Gupta P, 2006, INDIAN PEDIATR, V43, P479
[10]   Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support [J].
Harris, Paul A. ;
Taylor, Robert ;
Thielke, Robert ;
Payne, Jonathon ;
Gonzalez, Nathaniel ;
Conde, Jose G. .
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2009, 42 (02) :377-381