THE PERCEIVED VALUE OF PROVIDING PEER REVIEWERS WITH ABSTRACTS AND PREPRINTS OF RELATED PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED PAPERS
Christopher L Hatch1 and Steven N Goodman2
1Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Room 557, 6011 Executive Blvd, Rockville, MD 20852, USA; 2The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Division of Biostatistics, Baltimore, MD, USA
Objective: To assess the value that peer reviewers place on the provision of abstracts of related papers and of preprints of related unpublished manuscripts.
Design: A questionnaire was designed to measure peer reviewers' assessment of the actual or potential usefulness of provision of abstracts and preprints of related papers to their review and to the peer-review process in general. The questionnaire is being sent out to all peer reviewers as part of the normal review process for the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). Similarly, the choice of reviewers to whom abstracts and preprints are sent is at the discretion of an editor managing a manuscript, a standard JNCI procedure.
Results: Between February 24 and July 12, 1997, 366 questionnaires were sent to peer reviewers of submitted manuscripts. Of the 276 questionnaires distributed by June 12, 1997, 162 (59%)
had been returned by July 12, 1997; about one-third of the reviewers indicated that they received abstracts and about one-eighth indicated that they received preprints of related manuscripts.
More than two-thirds indicated that the provision of relevant abstracts or preprints helped (or could help) them in their evaluation of the originality of results reported in a manuscript;
approximately three-quarters of all respondents felt that the provision of such materials would have a positive impact on the peer-review process in general. However, among those who said that
they had actually received abstracts or preprints, only about one-third felt that their comments were directly affected.
Return to Session Information
