A SURVEY OF JOURNAL EDITORS
REGARDING THE REVIEW PROCESS
FOR ORIGINAL CLINICAL RESEARCH

Dorothy L Lebeau, William C Steinmann, and Robert K Michael
Tulane University Medical Center, School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Ave, SL-16, New Orleans, LA 70112-2699, USA

Objective: We conducted a survey of clinical journal editors to evaluate aspects of the review process that may have an impact on the validity of the medical literature. Editor's perceived standards for manuscript acceptance would not be reflected in the qualifications for board member or reviewer selection or objective criteria included in review formats used for manuscript evaluation.

Design: Descriptive mail questionnaire. We surveyed editors of the 119 clinical journals indexed in the Abridged Index Medicus to determine: specific criteria used in the selection of their editorial board members and reviewers of manuscripts; criteria to judge the acceptance of a manuscript for publication; and the standardized review formats used by reviewers to assess manuscript validity.

Results: Seventy-three percent of the questionnaires were returned completed. Editors rated individual credentials, such as "expertise in a given subject area," as more important than expertise in research methods as criteria to judge the selection of board members and reviewers of manuscripts. Most (97%) rated highly methodologic criteria, such as data validity and scientific merit, as criteria used in the decision to accept or reject manuscripts. However, the actual formats used by the journals for reviewers to evaluate the manuscripts included important methodologic criteria to evaluate the aspects of the study design in only 33% of the formats; biostatistical issues in only 42%; and assessment of measurements in only 7%. There were no differences found between responder and nonresponder editors according to the specialty content or the prestige level of their journals.

Conclusions: While the editors hold high criteria for acceptance of manuscripts that should help to ensure their validity at publication, the criteria used to select editorial board members and manuscript reviewers, and the formats used by reviewers for review, do not emphasize the important methodologic competencies and criteria that are most important to the critical appraisal of manuscripts.

Return to Session Information