ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2018
Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring reviewer self-assessment in the context of academic peer review.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Valuing contributions to peer review: A shared responsibility.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2023Article
- Article
- How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021Review
- Article
- Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
- A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.BMC medicine · 2019Article
- Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the peer reviewer metrics currently used in the surgical literature to evaluate original manuscript submissions.
methodsManuscript grading forms for 14 of the highest circulation general surgery-related journals were evaluated for content, including the type and number of quantitative and qualitative questions asked of peer reviewers. Reviewer grading forms for the seven surgical journals with the higher impact factors were compared to the seven surgical journals with lower impact factors using Fisher's exact tests.
resultsImpact factors of the studied journals ranged from 1.73 to 8.57, with a median impact factor of 4.26 in the higher group and 2.81 in the lower group. The content of the grading forms was found to vary considerably. Relatively few journals asked reviewers to grade specific components of a manuscript. Higher impact factor journal manuscript grading forms more frequently addressed statistical analysis, ethical considerations, and conflict of interest. In contrast, lower impact factor journals more commonly requested reviewers to make qualitative assessments of novelty/originality, scientific validity, and scientific importance.
conclusionSubstantial variation exists in the grading criteria used to evaluate original manuscripts submitted to the surgical literature for peer review, with differential emphasis placed on certain criteria correlated to journal impact factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.