article · Publications
Finding willing peer reviewers is challenging. This viewpoint describes a health sciences reviewer’s experience regarding the decision to decline or accept review invitations, and the review process and outcome in terms of journal communication and duration. This audit included all manuscript review invitations received by the researcher in 2022–2024. Information was noted from emails received from the journals. Of 130 review invitations received, 49 (38%) were accepted. The most common reason for declining review invitations (23/81; 28%) was that the researcher, a biostatistician, did not regard herself as having the necessary clinical background. Of the 49 accepted invitations, reviews were submitted for 46 manuscripts (94%), with 24 manuscripts (52%) requiring more than one review round. The reviewer was informed of the journal decision after each review round for 22 (48%) reviewed manuscripts. However, the final journal decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript was received for only 14 (30%) reviewed manuscripts. Journals provided comments of other reviewers for 44% (n = 20/46) of reviewed manuscripts. To align with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, journals should provide feedback to reviewers regarding other reviewers’ comments and the final journal decision. Journal information regarding the usual number of review rounds and duration may influence potential reviewers’ willingness to participate.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3390/publications14020037
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.