 |
|
Prodding Tardy Reviewers
A Randomized Comparison of Telephone, Fax, and e-mail
Roy M. Pitkin, MD;
Leon F. Burmeister, PhD
JAMA. 2002;287:2794-2795.
Context To compare telephone, fax, and e-mail methods of prodding tardy reviewers.
Methods Randomized trial conducted January 1998 through June 1999 at the main editorial office of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Reviewers who had failed to file reviews by 28 days after being sent manuscripts (7 days after deadline) were sent identical messages in oral (telephone) or written (fax and e-mail) form inquiring as to the status of review, asking for its completion as soon as possible, and requesting it be sent by fax or e-mail.
Results Of 378 reviewers, proportions returning reviews within 7 days were essentially identical: telephone, 85 (68%) of 125; fax, 86 (67%) of 129; and e-mail, 84 (67%) of 124 (P = .59). In the two thirds who responded, the mean time to return reviews did not differ among the 3 groups.
Conclusion Contacting tardy reviewers resulted in a review being received within 7 days in about two thirds of cases, and it made no difference if the contact was made by telephone, fax, or e-mail.
Author Affiliations: Obstetrics & Gynecology, Washington, DC (Dr Pitkin); and College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City (Dr Burmeister).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey
Tite and Schroter
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is email a reliable means of contacting authors of previously published papers? A study of the Emergency Medicine Journal for 2001
O'Leary
Emerg. Med. J. 2003;20:352-353.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Our editorial process - some experiences and reflections
Emmelin and Wall
Scand J Public Health 2003;31:161-168.
|
