EVALUATION OF THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
IN MEDICINA CLINICA (SPANISH JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE)

J M Ribera, F Cardellach, M Belmonte, F Lozano, E Feliu, C Rey-Joly, F Nonell, M Foz, C Rozman, J Ruiz, and J A Dotu
Medicina Clinica, Ediciones Doyma, SA, Traversa de Gracia, 17-21, 08021 Barcelona, Spain

Objective: Peer review is a basic tool for the decision process in biomedical journals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the main characteristics of the peer-review process in Medicina Clinica in 1996.

Design: Review of the database of original articles, case reports, and letters to the editor received by Medicina Clinica in 1996. Parameters evaluated: number of articles submitted to peer-review process, the use of reviewers not included on the official reviewer committee of Medicina Clinica , the reviewer work-load, the rate and delay of response, and the final decision by the editorial committee.

Results: Of the 1,177 articles received in 1996, 424 were original articles, 175 were case reports, and 518 were letters to the editor (48% related with previous articles published in Medicina Clinica ). After initial evaluation of all articles by the editorial committee, 156 (7 original articles, 5 case reports and 144 letters to the editor) were accepted, 260 were rejected, and 761(68%) were submitted to a peer-review process (77% of original articles, 63% of case reports and 41% of the letters to the editor). Of the 424 original articles, 121 (29%) were also evaluated by the reviewers of methodology and statistics; 386 different reviewers (all but one from Spain) were used, 217 (56%) being members of the official reviewer committee of Medicina Clinica. The mean (SD) number of papers reviewed by each expert was 1.97 (3.8), with a median of 2 (range 1-8). Fifty referees evaluated 5 or more articles. At the time of this study 71 articles are currently being reviewed. The delay (mean [SD]) in response was 44 (25) days (range 11-52) for original articles and 33 (22) days (range 7-147) for case reports and letters to the editor. In 20% of the referees who reviewed original articles and in 8% of the reviewers of case reports and letters to the editor there was a delay in response greater than 2 months. On 31 December 1996, 310 out of 1,177 articles were currently under reviewing process and 335 (39%) of the remaining 867 articles had been accepted.

Conclusions: A high number of referees not belonging to the official reviewer committee of Medicina Clinica have been used in the peer-review process, making enlargement of the committee necessary. Despite the wide use of referees outside of this committee, the work load of a substantial number of referees has been excessive. The number of papers with no response from the reviewers is disappointingly high. The delay in response is great in a large proportion of original articles, with a negative impact in the speed of the editorial process.

Return to Session Information