An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the editorial process on papers submitted to a scientific journal.


METHODS
Descriptive and correlational analysis.


METHODS
A single specialist rehabilitation journal from mid-1999 to mid-2003.


METHODS
The Editor, peer reviewers and authors.


METHODS
Submitted papers were initially screened, the majority were subject to review, and a decision was made on whether or not to publish. Reviewers scored papers on 11 items using a 0 (bad)-10 (good) scale.


METHODS
Time delays and rating of each paper on a pro-forma.


RESULTS
The number of papers submitted each year increased from 136 to 209. Between 19% and 31% were rejected without review and 17-24% were rejected later. The proportion accepted dropped from 64% to 47%. The median delay between arrival and first author contact in papers subject to review was stable between 67 and 76 days. Agreement between reviewers was low with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) varying between 0.12 and 0.27 and disagreement of 3 or more points in 32-51%. The main factor associated with eventual acceptance was the sum of the 'overall recommendation score' given by the two reviewers, but 20% of the variance in final decision was unexplained by the reviewers' scoring. The number of randomized trials published increased from 5 in 1996 to 21 in 2002.


CONCLUSIONS
The influence of the Editor on final decisions remains significant, particularly for papers 'on the margin'; decisions on publication in this journal are guided by but not determined by reviewers.
Wade
Derick
D
Tennant
Alan
A
D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D012046:Rehabilitation