Analysis of Submissions and Peer Review in Head & Face Medicine
Author Information
Author(s): Thomas Stamm, Ulrich Meyer, Hans-Peter Wiesmann, Johannes Kleinheinz, Murat Cehreli, Zafer Cehreli
Primary Institution: Universitätsklinikum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany
Hypothesis
The study aims to evaluate the characteristics of submissions and the effectiveness of open peer reviewing in the journal Head & Face Medicine.
Conclusion
The positive trend in submissions confirms the need for publication platforms for multidisciplinary science, and rejection of manuscripts was associated with the number of invited reviewers.
Supporting Evidence
- HFM received 126 articles for consideration in the first year.
- Peer reviewing was completed for 82 articles with an acceptance rate of 48.8%.
- The mean peer review time was 37.8 days.
- The mean time between submission and acceptance was 95.9 days.
- The main article types submitted were original research, reviews, and case reports.
Takeaway
This study looked at how many articles were submitted to a medical journal and how the review process worked. It found that more reviewers invited to look at a paper made it more likely to be rejected.
Methodology
A retrospective analysis of submissions and journal operations over a one-year period, including statistical tests like Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test.
Potential Biases
The only significant predictor for rejection was the number of invited reviewers, indicating a potential bias in the review process.
Limitations
The study is limited to the first year of submissions and may not reflect long-term trends.
Statistical Information
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website