PEER REVIEW OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MANUSCRIPTS IN A JOURNAL FROM THE SCIENTIFIC PERIPHERY

Ana Marusic, Tomislav Mestrovic, Mladen Petrovecki, and Matko Marusic
Croatian Medical Journal, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Salata 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Objective: To compare the peer-review process for national and international manuscripts processed by Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.

Design: Retrospective analysis of review forms for 286 manuscripts. Reviewers were asked about manuscript's structure (7 questions), its scientific value (7-item scale), clarity and length, and final recommendation (5-item scales). International manuscripts had at least 1 author from a non-Croatian institution.

Results: The overall rejection rate of manuscripts was 23%. National and international manuscripts had similar rejection rates except for original articles in clinical sciences (35.2% vs 17.6%, P=.037; Fisher's test). International manuscripts had shorter median review time (from receipt to decision) and publishing time (from acceptance to publication) than national manuscripts (57 vs 108 days (P<.001), and 54 vs 104 days (P<.009), respectively; Fisher's test). National articles were more often sent to international reviewers (P=.021; chi-square test). Reviewer's response rates and judgment of manuscripts did not differ for national and international manuscripts. The agreement between reviewers ranged from 33.3% (scientific value) to 89.1% (reference citations). Reviewers disagreed on the recommendation on national vs international manuscripts (40.0% vs 81.8% agreement, respectively, P<.001, chi-square test). Kappa for interrater agreement was poor to moderate, ranging from 0.08 for the originality to 0.59 for soundness of conclusions; there was no difference between national and international manuscripts.

Conclusion: The peer-review process in a small journal from the scientific periphery can be fair both to national and international manuscripts. Kappa for interrater agreement may not be the best measure of agreement between reviewers.

Return to Session Information