title: Peer review and editorial decision-making.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This paper describes and analyses the editor's decision-making process at the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), and investigates the association between reviewers' assessments and editorial decisions.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four hundred consecutive manuscripts submitted over a six-month period to the BJP were examined prospectively for assessors' comments and editorial decisions on acceptance or rejection. Interrater reliability of assessments was calculated and a logistic regression analysis investigated the effect of the rank allocated by assessors and the comprehensiveness of the assessments on the editor's decision.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The editor sent 248/400 (62%) manuscripts to assessors for peer review. Kappa for reliability of assessors rankings was 0.1 indicating poor interrater reliability. Assessors agreed best on whether to reject a paper. A ranking of five (indicating rejection) had the greatest association with editor's rejection (P < 0.001, odds ratio 0.079), and the mean ranking of assessments was also significantly associated with editorial acceptance or rejection (P = 0.004, odds ratio 0.24).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Assessors and editors tend to agree on what is clearly not acceptable for publication but there is less agreement on what is suitable.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Psychiatry, London.
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Howard
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Wilkinson
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011570:Psychiatry; D006113:United Kingdom