What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection
- PMID: 16820657
What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection
Erratum in
- Indian Pediatr. 2006 Aug;43(8):749
Abstract
Objectives: To identify the characteristics of the manuscripts submitted to the Indian Pediatrics; attributes of the peer-review process and decision-making; and factors associated with their acceptance or rejection.
Methods: All submissions to Indian Pediatrics during 2002 were analyzed by a retrospective review of records. Manuscripts were categorized by their place of origin (Indian vs. foreign), geographic region of India (north, south, east, west, central), submitting institution (teaching vs. non-teaching), subject (general pediatrics, systemic pediatrics, neonatology, genetic syndrome, allied sub-specialities, etc.), and type of article (research paper, case report, images, letter to editor, review, etc.). Manuscript details were recorded in a database that also included information on peer reviewer assignment, editorial and reviewer comments, and final disposition of the manuscript. Characteristics of accepted and rejected manuscripts were compared.
Results: Indian Pediatrics received 687 manuscripts for consideration in the year 2002; mostly from Indian authors (89%). Maximum contributions were received from North India (236, 39%) followed by 165 (27%) from South, 95 (16%) from West, 90 (15%) from Central and 26 (4%) from Eastern part of India. Of 687 papers, 457 (66%) articles qualified for peer review. Agreement between the reviewers was not significantly greater than that expected by chance; kappa for inter-rater agreement was 0.35, 0.17 and 0.21 between any two sets of reviewers for 431, 228 and 203 articles, respectively (P < 0.005). Of 687 submitted manuscripts, 294(43%) were accepted, 347(50%) were rejected and no decision was possible on 46(7%) manuscripts. The top reasons for rejection were 'absence of a message', 'lack of originality', 'inadequate methods', 'not relevant to journal', 'over-interpretation of results', 'unsatisfactory writing style', 'inaccurate/inconsistent/insufficient data', and 'inappropriate statistical analysis', in that order. Median number of days (IQR) needed to reach the final decision was 81 (25-210) d; ranging from 8 (3-29.5) d for Images to 180 (90-341) d for Research papers. No preference for acceptance was noted for foreign articles, geographic region of India, type of institution, or a particular topic, on both univariate and multivariate analysis.
Conclusion: Indian Pediatrics is receiving contributions from all over India. Majority of the manuscripts are peer-reviewed. Of every 10 articles submitted, almost 4 are accepted. Median time interval from submission to final decision is less than 3 months. The decision-making is not influenced by the place of origin of manuscript.
Similar articles
-
Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.Can J Anaesth. 2004 Jun-Jul;51(6):549-56. doi: 10.1007/BF03018396. Can J Anaesth. 2004. PMID: 15197116
-
A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.Head Face Med. 2007 Jun 11;3:27. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-3-27. Head Face Med. 2007. PMID: 17562003 Free PMC article.
-
Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?JBR-BTR. 2008 Nov-Dec;91(6):231-4. JBR-BTR. 2008. PMID: 19202995
-
Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.Saudi Med J. 2004 Jan;25(1 Suppl):S18-20. Saudi Med J. 2004. PMID: 14968186 Review.
-
The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Jan 17;165(2-3):115-28. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.013. Epub 2006 Jun 19. Forensic Sci Int. 2007. PMID: 16784827 Review.
Cited by
-
Conflict(s) of interest in peer review: its origins and possible solutions.Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Mar;20(1):55-75. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9426-z. Epub 2013 Jan 5. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014. PMID: 23292861
-
"Why We Say No! A Look Through the Editor's Eye".J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Oct;9(10):JB01-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/17160.6699. Epub 2015 Oct 1. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015. PMID: 26557542 Free PMC article.
-
The Journey of a Manuscript Submitted to the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology: From Receipt to Decision.Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Sep;60(3):118-120. doi: 10.4274/tao.2022.2022-02. Epub 2022 Nov 15. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022. PMID: 36452246 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?PLoS One. 2010 Apr 8;5(4):e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072. PLoS One. 2010. PMID: 20386704 Free PMC article.
-
The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022475. Epub 2011 Jul 25. PLoS One. 2011. PMID: 21799867 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical