Who Benefits from Peer Review? An Analysis of the Outcome of 100 Requests for Review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Martijn P. J. Loonen · J. Joris Hage · Moshe Kon

27 citations0/0 files storedPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known of what is done with the comments on submitted manuscripts provided by peer reviewers or to what extent these comments benefit the editor in deciding to accept or reject the manuscript, the author(s) in revising their manuscript, or the readership at large. Furthermore, nothing is known of any possible benefits of the process to the peer reviewer. Finally, the peer-review process may even be maleficent because of its implicit delay of publication and a possible bias against manuscripts originating from non-Anglo-American countries. METHODS: The authors evaluated the benefits of the peer-review process to authors, editor, readers, and reviewers by a bibliometric analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review made by the editor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 1992 through 2003. The publication delay and potential geographical bias were evaluated as potential disadvantages. RESULTS: The authors' reviewer advised acceptance of 56 percent of the manuscripts, and the editor mostly agreed with his advice. This suggests that the editor benefited from the review. The authors addressed 48 to 81 percent of the reviewer's constructive suggestions, and this suggests that they and the readers benefited also. Readers of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery may further benefit because manuscripts rejected by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery end up in less prestigious journals. The implicit delay of publication is limited, and the authors found no bias against non-Anglo-American submissions. The cost-effectiveness of the process for the peer reviewer remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The peer-review system of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, in general, is beneficial.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine 1998US and Non-US Submissions 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?2000North and South: bridging the information gap 1999Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts 1994Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language 1993The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews

Cited by

2006Publications of plastic surgery research 1972 through 2004: a longitudinal trend analysis of three international journals 2016Impact of Alumni Connections on Peer Review Ratings and Selection Success Rate in National Research 2013A Core-Item Reviewer Evaluation (CoRE) System for Manuscript Peer Review 2015Bias in peer review: a case study 2017Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.