H.S. Meyer is assistant professor, Department of Medicine, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. S.J. Durning is professor, Department of Medicine, and director, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, and deputy editor for research, Academic Medicine, Washington, DC. D.P. Sklar is distinguished professor emeritus of emergency medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and editor-in-chief, Academic Medicine, Washington, DC. L.A. Maggio is associate professor, Department of Medicine, and associate director for technology and distributed learning, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Acad Med. 2018 Mar;93(3):464-470. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001860.
Manuscripts submitted to Academic Medicine (AM) undergo an internal editor review to determine whether they will be sent for external peer review. Increasingly, manuscripts are rejected at this early stage. This study seeks to inform scholars about common reasons for internal editor review rejections, increase transparency of the process, and provide suggestions for improving submissions.
A mixed-methods approach was used to retrospectively analyze editors' free-text comments. Descriptive content analysis was performed of editors' comments for 369 manuscripts submitted between December 2014 and December 2015, and rejected prior to external peer review from AM. Comments were analyzed, categorized, and counted for explicit reasons for rejection.
Nine categories of rejection reasons were identified: ineffective study question and/or design (338; 92%); suboptimal data collection process (180; 49%); weak discussion and/or conclusions (139; 37%); unimportant or irrelevant topic to the journal's mission (137; 37%); weak data analysis and/or presentation of results (120; 33%); text difficult to follow, to understand (89; 24%); inadequate or incomplete introduction (67; 18%); other publishing considerations (42; 11%); and issues with scientific conduct (20; 5%). Manuscripts had, on average, three or more reasons for rejection.
Findings suggest that clear identification of a research question that is addressed by a well-designed study methodology on a topic aligned with the mission of the journal would address many of the problems that lead to rejection through the internal review process. The findings also align with research on external peer review.
提交给《学术医学》（AM）的稿件需经过内部编辑审查，以确定是否将其送交外部同行评审。越来越多的稿件在这一早期阶段被拒绝。本研究旨在让学者了解内部编辑审查拒绝的常见原因，增加该过程的透明度，并提供改进提交的建议。
采用混合方法回顾性分析编辑的自由文本评论。对 2014 年 12 月至 2015 年 12 月期间提交给 AM 的 369 篇稿件进行了描述性内容分析，这些稿件在外部同行评审前被编辑拒绝。对编辑评论进行了分析、分类和计数，以明确拒绝的原因。
确定了 9 类拒绝原因：无效的研究问题和/或设计（338；92%）；数据收集过程不理想（180；49%）；讨论和/或结论薄弱（139；37%）；与期刊使命无关或不相关的话题（137；37%）；数据分析和/或结果呈现较弱（120；33%）；文本难以理解（89；24%）；介绍不充分或不完整（67；18%）；其他出版考虑因素（42；11%）；和科学行为问题（20；5%）。平均每份稿件有 3 个或更多的拒绝理由。
研究结果表明，明确确定一个研究问题，该问题通过一个针对与期刊使命一致的主题的精心设计的研究方法来解决，这将解决导致内部审查过程中拒绝的许多问题。这些发现与外部同行评审的研究结果一致。
