Editors' requests of peer reviewers: A study and a proposal
Editors' requests of peer reviewers: A study and a proposal
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/pmed.1996.0035
复制
发表时间：
1996-03-01
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Frank, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frank, E
背景。尽管同行评议在科学过程中发挥着关键作用，但从未有过关于如何征求审稿人意见的正式研究。本文描述了这样一项研究，并为同行评议过程的更标准化方法提出了建议。我们希望，通过这一出版物和相关的努力，在预防医学和其他杂志上鼓励这样的进程。研究对象包括排名前100位的期刊（根据1989年科学信息研究所的引文频率指数）。仅包括主要设在美国的编辑部的期刊（n = 73）。参与者提供了他们的审稿人表格，审稿人的求职信，以及例行使用的审稿人说明。所有数据于1992年2月收集。应答率为97.3%。期刊对审稿人的要求各不相同。虽然96%的期刊要求审稿人推荐接受或拒绝，但只有72%的期刊要求审稿人评估稿件的新颖性，69%的期刊要求评估稿件的清晰度，只有51%的期刊要求评估稿件结论的合理性。同样，只有46%的期刊提醒审稿人手稿是机密文件，51%的期刊提供了单独的求职信，25%的期刊提供了广泛的（bbb10整页）审稿人指导。虽然审稿的一致性不是必需的，但审稿方案之间的差异可能不是特定期刊需要的结果，而是某些期刊不明确提及重要的审稿成分的结果。部分基于生物学编辑委员会的建议，提出了审稿的标准成分和审稿指南。如果编辑的期望更明确，审稿人的评论就能更好地满足编辑的需求。(C) 1996学术出版社，Inc.
Background. Despite the pivotal role of peer review in the scientific process, there has never been a formal study of the way in which reviewers' opinions are elicited, This article describes such a study and makes recommendations for a more standardized approach to the peer review process. We hope, through this publication and related efforts, to encourage such a process in Preventive Medicine and in other journals.Method. The study population included the top 100 journals (as rated by the 1989 Institute for Scientific Information citation frequency index). Only journals with primarily U.S.-based editorial offices are included (n = 73). Participants provided their reviewer forms, cover letters for reviewers, and instructions for reviewers that were used routinely. All data were collected in February 1992.Results. The response rate was 97.3%. Journals varied substantially in many of their reviewer requests. While 96% of journals asked reviewers to recommend acceptance or rejection, only 72% asked reviewers to assess manuscripts' novelty, 69% requested assessments of clarity, and only 51% asked for assessments of the reasonableness of manuscripts' conclusions. Similarly, only 46% of journals reminded reviewers that manuscripts were confidential documents, 51% provided a separate cover letter, and 25% provided extensive (>1 full page) reviewer instructions.Conclusions. While review uniformity is not requisite, differences between review protocols may not be a function of specific journals' needs, but of some journals' excluding important review components from explicit mention, Based in part on the Council of Biology Editors' recommendations, standard components of reviews and of instructions for reviewers are suggested. If editors' expectations were more explicit, reviewers' comments could better serve editorial needs. (C) 1996 Academic Press, Inc.