title: Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Because peer review is central to the publication of rigorous research, periodic assessment of the process's effectiveness is clearly warranted.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two online surveys, one for authors (n = 102) and the other for Editorial Board members (n = 20), were conducted to assess their perspectives on the quality and timeliness of peer review. The χ(2) or Fisher exact test was used to analyze differences between authors and Board member responses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Authors of accepted manuscripts were significantly more likely to rate the review as the same or better than other peer reviews they had received when compared with authors of rejected manuscripts (93.3% vs 47.4%, respectively, P = .001). In general, perceptions of review quality among Board members and authors were similar, but Board members were significantly more likely to rate reviewers as fair and unbiased (91.4% and 70%, respectively, P = .04). Approximately one-fourth (23.5%) of authors reported that length of time between manuscript submission and receipt of decision was 0 to 4 weeks, 38.2% indicated 5 to 7 weeks, 18.6% took 8 to 10 weeks, and 19.6% of authors reported that the decision required more than 10 weeks.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This survey of authors and Board members provided important insights into perceptions of the peer review process and identified areas for improvement.
authors.affiliation: American Journal of Infection Control, New York, NY 10032, USA. cmb2216@columbia.edu
authors.forename: Christina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bunner
authors.forename: Elaine L
authors.initials: EL
authors.lastname: Larson
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D001319:Authorship; D003625:Data Collection; D035081:Editorial Policies; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000592:standards*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011786:Quality Control