Department of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México.
Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Aug;41(8):2541-2551. doi: 10.1007/s10067-022-06238-4. Epub 2022 Jun 13.
To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal.
This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests.
In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance.
Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.
评估以前被一家风湿病学重点期刊拒绝的手稿的质量和表现。
这是一项针对 2019 年向临床风湿病学(CLRH)提交并被一位副编辑拒绝的手稿的横断面、审计类型、探索性研究。我们使用了一个 36 项质量评估工具(5 分序尺度,1 分为最差)。绩效变量包括被拒绝的手稿是否在另一个 PubMed 列出的期刊上发表、出版期刊的影响因子(Scimago)、引文数量(Web of Science)和社交媒体关注度(Altmetrics)。探索性变量包括作者过去的出版物、使用报告指南和文本结构。使用非参数检验评估探索性变量。
共有 165 份手稿被拒绝。只有五份(4%)手稿使用了报告指南。总体质量评分平均为 2.48±0.73,54%的手稿评分为 2;40-80%的关键项目评分<3。在 26 个月的随访中,79 份(48%)被拒绝的手稿在其他期刊上发表,这些期刊的影响因子大多较低;70%的手稿至少有一个引文,而在 CLRH 发表的手稿则有 90.5%。在其他地方发表的手稿的 Altmetrics 明显低于在 CLRH 发表的手稿。至于文本结构,方法和结果部分比建议的短,讨论部分比建议的长。通讯作者的过往经验和文本结构与质量或接受度无关。
研究报告质量有待提高,主要是针对解释研究和研究结果的关键项目。期刊应鼓励使用报告指南。
研究报告(在被拒绝的手稿中)的质量不足。
很少在被拒绝的手稿中使用报告指南。
被临床风湿病学拒绝的手稿可能随后在影响因子较低的另一个期刊上发表,与被接受的手稿相比,引文较少,社交媒体关注度较低。