Marusić A, Mestrović T, Petrovecki M, Marusić M
Croatian Medical Journal, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Salata 3, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.
Croat Med J. 1998 Mar;39(1):3-9.
We analyzed the peer review process in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) from 1992 to 1996 by a retrospective analysis of review forms for 319 manuscripts. The forms asked about manuscript's structure (7 questions), its scientific value (7-item scale), clarity and length, and final recommendation (5-item scale). An international manuscript had at least one author affiliated with a non-Croatian institution. The overall rejection rate of manuscripts was 23.5%. National and international manuscripts had similar rejection rates except for original research manuscripts in clinical sciences (34.7% vs. 18.9%, p=0.046). Out-door peer review was asked for 77.4% of the manuscripts; other manuscripts were commissioned and passed an in-house review. Over the years, the number of international reviewers increased, and that of national reviewers decreased. National reviewers more often did not fill in the review form, and international reviewers more often asked for a major revision. The agreement between reviewers ranged from 34.1% (scientific value) to 90.7% (reference citations). Kappa for inter-rater agreement was poor to fair, without difference between national and international manuscripts. International manuscripts had shorter median review time (from receipt to decision) and publishing time (from acceptance to publication) than national manuscripts: 58 vs. 112 days (p<0.001), and 116 vs. 140 days (p<0.009), respectively. Our analysis shows that peer review can be introduced and sustained in a small journal from the scientific periphery. It can be fair both to national and international manuscripts, although work with the authors of national manuscripts may be needed to improve the quality of data presentation.
我们通过对319篇稿件的评审表进行回顾性分析，研究了1992年至1996年《克罗地亚医学杂志》（CMJ）的同行评审过程。评审表涉及稿件结构（7个问题）、科学价值（7级量表）、清晰度和篇幅，以及最终建议（5级量表）。国际稿件至少有一位作者隶属于非克罗地亚机构。稿件的总体拒稿率为23.5%。除临床科学方面的原创研究稿件外，国内和国际稿件的拒稿率相似（34.7%对18.9%，p = 0.046）。77.4%的稿件进行了外部同行评审；其他稿件则委托进行内部评审。多年来，国际评审员的数量增加，而国内评审员的数量减少。国内评审员更常不填写评审表，而国际评审员更常要求进行重大修改。评审员之间的一致性范围从34.1%（科学价值）到90.7%（参考文献引用）。评分者间一致性的Kappa值为差到中等，国内和国际稿件之间无差异。国际稿件的中位评审时间（从收到稿件到做出决定）和发表时间（从接受稿件到发表）比国内稿件短：分别为58天对112天（p<0.001）和116天对140天（p<0.009）。我们分析表明，在科学边缘地区的小型期刊中可以引入并维持同行评审。尽管可能需要与国内稿件的作者合作以提高数据呈现质量，但同行评审对国内和国际稿件都可以是公平的。
