Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache

Chelsea M. Hesterman · Christina Lynch Szperka · Dana P. Turner

34 citations0/0 files storedHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain

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

OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize the reasons manuscripts are rejected after peer review from the journal Headache. BACKGROUND: Numerous editorials, reviews, and research manuscripts have been published on the topic of manuscript rejection. However, few of these papers evaluate the reasons for rejection after peer review systematically. None are specific to the field of neurology or headache medicine. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all submissions to Headache from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was performed. Peer reviewer and editor comments for each manuscript were reviewed, and unlimited reasons for rejection were coded for each manuscript. Detailed reasons for rejection were then grouped into 9 broader categories. RESULTS: A total of 784 submissions were received from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 336 were immediately rejected and 434 went on to peer review. During this period, the overall rejection rate was 62.6% and the rejection rate after peer review was 35.7%. The 6 most common reasons for rejection after peer review were: flaws in methodology and study design, poor reporting of methodology, poor statistical analysis, overstatement of conclusions, problems with covariates or outcomes, and problems with the control or case group. CONCLUSION: Flaws in methodology and study design were the most common reasons for rejection after peer review from Headache between 2014-2016.

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 — 34 citations exist upstream.

References

2010The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index 1994Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis 1994Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts 2000Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?2001Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts 2003More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review 2016Publication Productivity and Experience: Factors Associated with Academic Rank Among Orthopaedic Surgery Faculty in the United States 2014Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study

Cited by

2019Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey 2022Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals 2024Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance 2022Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos

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.