[Editorial analysis of manuscripts sent for publication in the Revista Médica de Chile]

Abstract

We analyzed 121 articles published in this Journal in 1989. Papers were classified as "clinical experiences" (55%), "research articles" (31%), "public health" (10%) and "clinical laboratory" (4%). 79% of papers were elaborated in University institutions and 77% came from the area of Santiago. 23% of articles were published in the original version and 77% required rewriting by authors to comply with editorial board review. In each case, time between reception of the manuscript and acceptation for publication was 69 +/- 36 (SD) and 141 +/- 78 days, respectively. Reviewers used 35 +/- 19 days. Main observations from reviewers were: lengthy introduction (17%), unprecise statement of objective (16%), inadequate description of methods (17%) or of patient selection criteria (9%), inadequate discussion of results (19%) or unsupported conclusions (18%) and inappropriate statistical analysis (17%). The title was changed in order to make it more informative and shorter in 23%, tables were standardized in 17% and references in 24% of papers. Awareness of these findings may help authors improve their manuscripts and reduce editorial time.