Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 1;73(5):567-571.
doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003208.

Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions

Prerna Kumar  1 , Aditya Ravindra  1 , Yanzhi Wang  1 , Dominique C Belli  2 , Melvin B Heyman  3 , Sandeep K Gupta  4   5
Affiliations

Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions

Prerna Kumar et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. .

Abstract

Objective: Given the importance of scholarly work in academic medicine, better understanding of the manuscript review process (MRP) is useful for authors, reviewers, and editorial boards. We aim to describe the MRP at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (JPGN), assess the correlation between editor decisions and reviewer recommendations, and provide transparency to this process.

Methods: All manuscripts submitted in 2018 to JPGN were included in this analysis. Data included reviewers' manuscript scores and recommendations, time spent on each review by reviewers, the editor's rating of the reviewers' reviews, the editor's first decision, and final outcome. Data were collated using the JPGN manuscript submission website, Editorial Manager.

Results: 1023 manuscripts were submitted to JPGN in 2018 and included in this analysis. Of these, 486 manuscripts had at least two peer reviewers. The recommendations of the two reviewers were in agreement 43% of the time. Intra-class correlation (ICC) between the two reviewers suggests moderate agreement (ICC = 0.40). When both reviewers agreed to Not Reject (289/486), the editor agreed in 93% of cases (269/289). When both reviewers agreed to Reject (55/486), the editor agreed 100% of the time (55/55). The reviewers disagreed in about one-third of submissions (142/486), and the editor recommended to Reject in two-thirds of these cases (95/142). Overall, inter-reviewer agreement strongly correlated with the editor's initial decision (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: The editor most often agreed with reviewers' assessments when there was concordance between the two reviewers' recommendations. About a third of peer reviews result in discordant recommendations between the two reviewers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: Current and past editors-in-chief for the North American and European editorial offices are authors on this work.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Björk B-C. Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: a literature survey. El profesional de la información 2019; 28:e280407 https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07 - DOI
    1. Lowe NK. Peer review in scientific scholarship. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2017; 46:799–800.
    1. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, et al. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician 2015; 18:E1–E14.
    1. Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, et al. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMC Med 2019; 17:118.
    1. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20:357–358.