对：编辑过程的审核。经验教训，以及如何提高您的论文被接受的机会。

An audit of the editorial process at the : Lessons learned, and how to improve chances of acceptance of your paper.

机构信息

Editorial Assistant, Indian Journal of Cancer.

Ex-executive Editor, Indian Journal of Cancer.

出版信息

Indian J Cancer. 2021 Apr-Jun;58(2):165-170. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_1319_20.

DOI:10.4103/ijc.IJC_1319_20

PMID:34100409

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The editors of the Indian Journal of Cancer (IJC) have not, so far, objectively analyzed the editorial processes involving author, referee, and editor data of the journal. Hence, we aimed at doing so in this audit.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed manuscripts submitted to the IJC from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020, for data related to the peer-review process. Microsoft Excel was used to enter the retrieved information and to carry out the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred and nineteen manuscripts were submitted during the study period. Of these, three were excluded from the study. Of the 316, 79 (25%) were articles on laboratory medicine; 182 (57.6%) were original articles. About half of the submitted manuscripts (166, 52.5%) were desk-rejected. Of the remaining 149 manuscripts, 105 did not follow the instructions to contributors (ITC) and required a median number of two revisions (range = 1-5) to satisfy the ITC. To review 107 manuscripts, 536 external referees were invited; of them 306 did not respond, 79 declined the invitation, and 151 accepted the invitation. Of these 151, 132 reverted with comments. Of the 200 Indians who were invited as referees, 118 (59%) accepted the invitation, whereas of the 336 non-Indian referees, only 33 (9.8%) did. Of the 107 Indian and 25 non-Indian referees who sent their comments, 86 (80.4%) and 19 (88%), respectively, offered useful comments. The median number of days to decision: for desk-rejection was 1 day (range = 0 - 42) days, for rejection after peer-review was 67 (range = 4 - 309) days, and for acceptance was 133.5 (range = 42 - 305) days. Decision has not yet been taken for 14 manuscripts.

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that it is difficult to get referees. Also, a significant number of authors do not read or follow the ITC. We suggest that the time taken for a decision can be appreciably improved if these issues are addressed.

摘要

背景

印度癌症杂志（IJC）的编辑尚未客观分析期刊的作者、审稿人和编辑数据的编辑流程。因此，我们旨在对此进行审核。

方法

我们回顾性分析了 2020 年 4 月 1 日至 5 月 31 日提交给 IJC 的手稿，以获取与同行评审过程相关的数据。使用 Microsoft Excel 输入检索到的信息并进行统计分析。

结果

研究期间共提交了 319 份手稿。其中，3 份被排除在研究之外。在 316 份中，79 份（25%）是关于实验室医学的文章；182 份（57.6%）是原始文章。提交的手稿中有一半（166 份，52.5%）是直接拒绝。其余 149 份手稿中，有 105 份未遵循投稿须知（ITC），需要中位数为 2 次修订（范围=1-5）才能满足 ITC。为了审查 107 份手稿，邀请了 536 位外部审稿人；其中 306 人未回复，79 人拒绝邀请，151 人接受邀请。在这 151 人中，有 132 人回复了评论。在受邀的 200 名印度审稿人中，有 118 人（59%）接受了邀请，而在 336 名非印度审稿人中，只有 33 人（9.8%）接受了邀请。在 107 名印度和 25 名非印度审稿人中，有 86 名（80.4%）和 19 名（88%）分别提供了有用的评论。决策的中位数天数：直接拒绝为 1 天（范围=0-42）天，同行评审后拒绝为 67 天（范围=4-309）天，接受为 133.5 天（范围=42-305）天。14 份手稿尚未做出决定。