© 1999 by European Society of Cardiology
Copyright © 1999, European Society of Cardiology
The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making
Editorial Office of Cardiovascular Research, Academic Medical Centre, Room J-127, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-566-3265; fax: +31-20-697-5458 r.coronel{at}amc.uva.nl
Scientific journals are confronted with increasing numbers of submitted manuscripts. Because of page limitations, these journals have to revert to a high rejection rate. The standard form accompanying manuscripts submitted to Cardiovascular Research was changed in order to entice reviewers in an advisory behaviour more suited to the editorial rejection rate. All original manuscripts submitted to Cardiovascular Research during the previous four years were analyzed. The recommended rejection rate of individual reviewers was 23% and, with increasing experience, reviewers become more critical. The reviewer’s recommendations and indication of scientific priority did not match the journal’s rejection rate. An effort to lure the reviewers into a more critical advisory behaviour was effective. However, unanimity between reviewers is rare. The reviewer’s recommendations do not justify high rejection rates and a wider dissemination of scientific information in the biomedical field is called for.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J. Janse The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias Cardiovasc Res, December 1, 2002; 56(3): 339 - 346. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Opthof and R. Coronel Productivity in science: more more and more? Cardiovasc Res, November 1, 2002; 56(2): 175 - 177. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J Janse Impact factor of Cardiovascular Research in 2000: all time high! Cardiovasc Res, April 1, 2001; 50(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J. Janse Reviewer's recommendations predict impact: why you have to send us your very best work Cardiovasc Res, October 1, 2000; 48(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J Janse Where do our reviewers come from? Cardiovasc Res, April 1, 2000; 46(1): 1 - 13. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Opthof, F. Furstner, M. van Geer, and R. Coronel Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts Cardiovasc Res, January 1, 2000; 45(1): 255 - 258. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|