title: [Editorial analysis of manuscripts sent for publication in the Revista Médica de Chile].
abstract: We analyzed 121 articles published in this Journal in 1989. Papers were classified as "clinical experiences" (55%), "research articles" (31%), "public health" (10%) and "clinical laboratory" (4%). 79% of papers were elaborated in University institutions and 77% came from the area of Santiago. 23% of articles were published in the original version and 77% required rewriting by authors to comply with editorial board review. In each case, time between reception of the manuscript and acceptation for publication was 69 +/- 36 (SD) and 141 +/- 78 days, respectively. Reviewers used 35 +/- 19 days. Main observations from reviewers were: lengthy introduction (17%), unprecise statement of objective (16%), inadequate description of methods (17%) or of patient selection criteria (9%), inadequate discussion of results (19%) or unsupported conclusions (18%) and inappropriate statistical analysis (17%). The title was changed in order to make it more informative and shorter in 23%, tables were standardized in 17% and references in 24% of papers. Awareness of these findings may help authors improve their manuscripts and reduce editorial time.
authors.affiliation: Revista Médica de Chile, Sociedad Médica de Santiago.
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Kauffmann
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Reyes
authors.lastname: Goic A
mesh_terms: D008374:Manuscripts, Medical as Topic; D010380:Peer Review; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011643:Publishing
vernacular_title: Análisis editorial de los manuscritos enviados para publicación en la Revista Médica de Chile.