You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 287 No. 21, June 5, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Peer Review
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (9)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Identifying Manuscript Reviewers

Randomized Comparison of Asking First or Just Sending

Roy M. Pitkin, MD; Leon F. Burmeister, PhD

JAMA. 2002;287:2795-2796.

Context  Some journals routinely query potential referees before sending manuscripts ("askfirst"), whereas others just send manuscripts and allow referees to opt out ("justsend"). It is not known which protocol results in more completed reviews or shorter review time.

Methods  Trial to assess proportion of referee turndowns and length of review process, conducted at editorial office of Obstetrics & Gynecology and involving 283 consecutive qualifying manuscripts. For each, a referee was randomly assigned to askfirst (manuscript sent only after affirmative response within 3 days) and another to justsend (manuscript sent with request to review; could opt out).

Results  Only 64% of askfirst referees assented initially (15% declined [vs 8% for justsend, P = .008] and 21% failed to respond within 3 working days, necessitating a replacement). But once manuscript was mailed, mean time to file a review was significantly shorter for askfirst (21.0 vs 25.0 days, P<.001); thus, overall time to receipt of review did not differ significantly (24.7 vs 25.9 days, P = .19), nor did review quality (P = .39).

Conclusion  Askfirst led to a higher rate of referee turndown than did justsend, but assenting askfirst referees completed reviews faster. The overall time for the review process did not differ between the 2 protocols.


Author Affiliation: Obstetrics & Gynecology, Washington, DC.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Prescriber Profiling
Tsai
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:81-81.
FULL TEXT  

Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey
Tite and Schroter
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Our editorial process - some experiences and reflections
Emmelin and Wall
Scand J Public Health 2003;31:161-168.
 





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.