title: Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this study was to evaluate metrics related to manuscripts rejected by AJR with and without review during 2014 and to determine their final disposition: no record of eventual publication, eventually published, published with modified authors and title, published with the same title but modified authors, and published with modified title but the same authors.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 1245 unsolicited manuscripts submitted from January to December 2014 were included in this retrospective analysis. Data were extracted from the AJR's manuscript submission system. Standard statistical analysis was used to assess the fate of a sample of 200 rejected manuscripts.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 200 manuscripts studied, 117 (59%) were published in other scientific journals (61 with revision, 56 without revision; Χ2= 0.329, p = 0.566). Thirty-two of the 61 manuscripts (52%) rejected after peer review were later published in other journals without changes in their titles or authors, 16 (26%) with changes only in authors, 10 (16%) with changes only in their titles, and three (5%) with changes in authors and titles. Twenty-six of the 56 manuscripts (46%) rejected without peer review were published without changes in their titles or authors, 17 (30%) with changes in authors, 11 (20%) with changes only in their titles, and two (4%) with changes in both authors and titles (p = 0.686). Ten articles were published in open access journals. Of the remaining articles, those that had been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor ± SD of 2.37 ± 1.30, and those that had not been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor of 2.04 ± 1.06. Analysis of the 25th and 75th percentiles revealed that values were also higher for the group rejected with review (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 1679, p = 0.1127). Out of 61 articles rejected for publication with review, 52.5% were published with changes to their abstracts, whereas the remaining 47.5% were unchanged.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This analysis found that manuscripts submitted to AJR that were rejected after review were published in journals with higher impact factors than those rejected without review. The commentaries provided by AJR reviewers and section editors appear to improve the quality of rejected manuscripts and thus contribute to the scientific community.
authors.affiliation: 1 MRI Division, Foundation of Neurological Research "Dr. Raúl Carrea," Montañeses 2325, CABA, C1428AQK, Buenos Aires, Argentina.|2 Buenos Aires University, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
authors.forename: Claudia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Cejas
mesh_terms: D035081:Editorial Policies; D055811:Journal Impact Factor; D008374:Manuscripts, Medical as Topic; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011643:Publishing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011859:Radiography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011871:Radiology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014481:United States
keywords: journalism; publication; revision