Sohail Saba, Akhtar Jamshed
Department of Publications, College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP), Karachi, Pakistan.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019 Jan;29(1):29-32. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2019.01.29.
To document the reviewers' responses in terms of reviewers' demographic and professional characteristics, promptness of reply, and duration of reply to the request to review medical research articles for a general biomedical research journal.
Cross-sectional, observational study.
Department of Publications, College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP), from October to December 2015.
Peer reviewed articles edited by a single staff editor were included. Editorials and correspondence were excluded. Manuscript category, discipline, and the total number of reviewers per manuscript were noted. Responses were divided into no response, regrets, and responded, i.e. provided with the review comments; and further sub-divided into timely response, i.e. within 21 days, or later. Total duration of response was counted in days from the date of dispatch to the date of receiving. Among those who provided a review, reviewers' characteristics were noted as designation, institute affiliation, qualification, and gender. Number and percentages of the studied variables were determined. Chi-square test of proportions was used for comparing the proportions with significance at p<0.05.
Reviewers for 50 articles including 28 original articles, 15 case reports, three letters to the editor, two short communications, and two new techniques, were evaluated. A total of 598 reviewers were contacted for those 50 articles; forming an average of 11.96 reviewers contacted and 2.2 responded per manuscript. Four hundred and seventy (78.59%) did not reply at all, 18 (3.01%) regretted, and 110 (18.39%) responded (79/110=71.81% timely, and 31/110=28.18% late). Earliest reply was received in one day and the delayed reply in 87 days. Maximum number of reviewers was 24 for a single original article (internal medicine) and 22 for a case report (cardiology). Significantly, more fellows, professors and females (p=0.004, p=0.002, and p=0.017, respectively) provided timely response.
An overwhelming majority of the reviewers did not reply at all despite the incentives of CME credits and honorarium, adversely affecting the processing time. Majority of those who replied, were on time. Reasons for those who did not reply need to be explored.
记录评审人员在人口统计学和专业特征、回复及时性以及对一份普通生物医学研究期刊审阅医学研究文章请求的回复时长方面的情况。
横断面观察性研究。
巴基斯坦医师与外科医师学院（CPSP）出版部，2015年10月至12月。
纳入由一名编辑人员编辑的经过同行评审的文章。排除社论和通信。记录稿件类别、学科以及每篇稿件的评审人员总数。回复分为无回复、表示遗憾以及回复（即提供评审意见）；进一步细分为及时回复（即在21天内）或延迟回复。回复的总时长从发送日期到接收日期按天数计算。在提供评审意见的人员中，记录评审人员的特征，如职称、机构隶属关系、资质和性别。确定研究变量的数量和百分比。使用比例的卡方检验来比较比例，显著性水平为p<0.05。
对50篇文章的评审人员进行了评估，其中包括28篇原创文章、15篇病例报告、3封给编辑的信、2篇简短通信和2项新技术。为这50篇文章共联系了598名评审人员；平均每篇稿件联系11.96名评审人员，2.2人回复。470人（78.59%）根本未回复，18人（3.01%）表示遗憾，110人（18.39%）回复（79/110 = 71.百分之81及时回复，31/110 = 28.百分之18延迟回复）。最早在1天收到回复，最晚在87天收到回复。一篇原创文章（内科）的评审人员最多为24人，一篇病例报告（心脏病学）的评审人员最多为22人。值得注意的是，更多的研究员、教授和女性（分别为p = 0.004、p = 0.002和p = 0.017）提供了及时回复。
尽管有继续医学教育学分和酬金的激励，但绝大多数评审人员根本未回复，这对处理时间产生了不利影响。大多数回复的人是及时回复的。需要探究未回复人员的原因。
