{"title":"A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.","authors":"Gina Joubert","doi":"10.4102/safp.v65i1.5753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer review frequently improves a manuscript, but authors may consider some reviewer feedback negative, inappropriate or unclear. This study aims to summarise and analyse review comments received by authors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This longitudinal study included all submissions of which the researcher was an author, reviewed by any journal during 2020-2022. First-round reviews were retrieved from emails and documents received by the authors or the faculty's medical editors or the journal platforms. A confidential datasheet with review items compiled from literature and the researcher's experience as author and reviewer was completed for each submission. Review comments were noted verbatim for subjective items such as rude or vague statements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 65 submissions received 118 reviews from 36 journals, mainly in the form of unstructured narrative reports (59%). The majority of first-round reviews (58%), including those for rejected submissions, contained some positive comments. Reviewers frequently (75% of reviews, 88% of submissions) required some expansion of information. Vague and incorrect statements occurred in 15% and 18% of reviews, respectively. Only two reviews contained statements that could be considered rude. The types of comments made were associated with the review format.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of reviews contained some positive comments and rude comments were extremely rare. Reviewers frequently requested the expansion of information provided.Contribution: This study gives insight to authors, reviewers and editors regarding the type and tone of review comments. This could guide authors during manuscript preparation and authors, reviewers and editors during the review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":22040,"journal":{"name":"South African Family Practice","volume":"65 1","pages":"e1-e5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Family Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v65i1.5753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Peer review frequently improves a manuscript, but authors may consider some reviewer feedback negative, inappropriate or unclear. This study aims to summarise and analyse review comments received by authors.
Methods: This longitudinal study included all submissions of which the researcher was an author, reviewed by any journal during 2020-2022. First-round reviews were retrieved from emails and documents received by the authors or the faculty's medical editors or the journal platforms. A confidential datasheet with review items compiled from literature and the researcher's experience as author and reviewer was completed for each submission. Review comments were noted verbatim for subjective items such as rude or vague statements.
Results: The 65 submissions received 118 reviews from 36 journals, mainly in the form of unstructured narrative reports (59%). The majority of first-round reviews (58%), including those for rejected submissions, contained some positive comments. Reviewers frequently (75% of reviews, 88% of submissions) required some expansion of information. Vague and incorrect statements occurred in 15% and 18% of reviews, respectively. Only two reviews contained statements that could be considered rude. The types of comments made were associated with the review format.
Conclusion: The majority of reviews contained some positive comments and rude comments were extremely rare. Reviewers frequently requested the expansion of information provided.Contribution: This study gives insight to authors, reviewers and editors regarding the type and tone of review comments. This could guide authors during manuscript preparation and authors, reviewers and editors during the review process.
期刊介绍：
South African Family Practice (SAFP) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which strives to provide primary care physicians and researchers with a broad range of scholarly work in the disciplines of Family Medicine, Primary Health Care, Rural Medicine, District Health and other related fields. SAFP publishes original research, clinical reviews, and pertinent commentary that advance the knowledge base of these disciplines. The content of SAFP is designed to reflect and support further development of the broad basis of these disciplines through original research and critical review of evidence in important clinical areas; as well as to provide practitioners with continuing professional development material.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
