Gibson Mark, Spong Catherine Y, Simonsen Sara Ellis, Martin Sheryl, Scott James R
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA.
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Sep;112(3):646-52. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818425d4.
To survey authors submitting manuscripts to a leading specialty journal regarding their assessment of editorial review. The study sought factors affecting authors' satisfaction and whether authors rated the journal review processes differently from the commentary provided by different reviewers.
Participation in an online survey was offered to 445 corresponding authors of research manuscripts submitted consecutively during a 7-month period. All manuscripts received full editorial review. The survey instrument asked authors to rate six aspects of editorial comments from each of two to four reviewers and three aspects of the review process. In addition, the survey queried overall satisfaction and likelihood of submission of future manuscripts based on review experience.
Higher ratings for overall satisfaction with manuscript review were given by authors of accepted compared with rejected manuscripts (98% compared with 80%, P<.001). Authors rated processes for submission and review more highly than editorial commentary (88% compared with 69%, P<.001), and this difference was greater among authors of rejected manuscripts. The extent to which reviewers focused on important aspects of submitted manuscripts received the lowest ratings from authors. Authors' ratings of reviewers' comments differentiated between reviewers and did not correlate with ratings of reviews by the journal's senior editors.
Author feedback was more favorable among authors of accepted manuscripts, and responses differentiated among aspects of editorial review and reviewers. Author feedback may provide a means for monitoring and improvement of processes for editorial review and reviewer commentary.
III.
调查向一家领先的专业期刊投稿的作者对编辑评审的评价。该研究探寻影响作者满意度的因素，以及作者对期刊评审流程的评分是否与不同审稿人提供的评论不同。
向在7个月期间连续提交研究稿件的445位通讯作者提供参与在线调查的机会。所有稿件都接受了全面的编辑评审。调查问卷要求作者对两至四位审稿人的编辑评论的六个方面以及评审流程的三个方面进行评分。此外，该调查还询问了基于评审经历的总体满意度以及未来稿件投稿的可能性。
与被拒稿件的作者相比，被接受稿件的作者对稿件评审的总体满意度评分更高（98%对80%，P<0.001）。作者对投稿和评审流程的评分高于编辑评论（88%对69%，P<0.001），且这种差异在被拒稿件的作者中更大。审稿人关注投稿稿件重要方面的程度获得作者的评分最低。作者对审稿人评论的评分在不同审稿人之间存在差异，且与期刊高级编辑的评审评分无关。
被接受稿件的作者给出的反馈更积极，且反馈在编辑评审和审稿人的各个方面存在差异。作者反馈可为监测和改进编辑评审及审稿人评论流程提供一种手段。
III级
