title: Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
abstract: To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation.
  
  
  
  We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression.
  
  
  
  There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]).
  
  
  
  Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Medstar Washington Hospital Center/Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC; Obstetrics & Gynecology Editorial Offices, Washington, DC; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
authors.forename: Laura I
authors.initials: LI
authors.lastname: Parikh
authors.forename: Rebecca S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Benner
authors.forename: Thomas W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Riggs
authors.forename: Nicholas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Hazen
authors.forename: Nancy C
authors.initials: NC
authors.lastname: Chescheir
mesh_terms: D006176:Gynecology; D006801:Humans; D055811:Journal Impact Factor; D008511:Medicine; D015588:Observer Variation; D009774:Obstetrics; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies