ACCEPTANCE RATE AND REASONS FOR REJECTION OF MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND DURING 2012

Christopher R. Lamb · Wilfried Maï

6 citations0/0 files storedVeterinary Radiology & Ultrasound

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

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

Abstract

Better understanding of the reasons why manuscripts are rejected, and recognition of the most frequent manuscript flaws identified by reviewers, should help submitting authors to avoid these pitfalls. Of 219 manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound in 2012, none (0%) was accepted without revision, four (2%) were withdrawn by the authors, 99 (45%) were accepted after revision, and 116 (53%) were rejected. All manuscripts for which minor revision was requested, and 73/86 (85%) manuscripts for which major revision was requested, were ultimately accepted. Acceptance rate was greater for retrospective studies and for manuscripts submitted from countries in which English was the primary language. The prevalences of flaws in manuscripts were poor writing (62%), deficiencies in data (60%), logical or methodological errors (28%), content not suitable for Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound (26%), and lack of new or useful knowledge (25%). Likelihood of manuscript rejection was greater for lack of new or useful knowledge and content not suitable than for other manuscript flaws. The lower acceptance rate for manuscripts from countries in which English was not the primary language was associated with content not suitable and not poor writing. Submitting authors are encouraged to do more to recognize and address manuscript flaws before submission, for example by internal review. Specifically, submitting authors should express clearly the potential added value of their study in the introduction section of their manuscript, describe completely their methods and results, and consult the Editor-in-Chief if they are uncertain whether their subject matter would be suitable for the journal.

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 — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?2010A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants 2001Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts 1998Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance 2005A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript 2002How I Review an Original Scientific Article 2003Misuse of standard error of the mean (sem) when reporting variability of a sample. A critical evaluation of four anaesthesia journals 2007Reasons for Rejection of Manuscripts Submitted to AJR by International Authors

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.