SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication.

Hing, CB; Higgs, D; Hooper, L; Donell, ST; Song, F (2011) A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication. J Orthop Surg Res, 6. p. 19. ISSN 1749-799X https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-19
SGUL Authors: Hing, Caroline Blanca

[img]
Preview
PDF Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (364kB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To investigate the characteristics of editors and criteria used by orthopaedic journal editors in assessing submitted manuscripts. METHODS: Between 2008 to 2009 all 70 editors of Medline listed orthopaedic journals were approached prospectively with a questionnaire to determine the criteria used in assessing manuscripts for publication. RESULTS: There was a 42% response rate. There was 1 female editor and the rest were male with 57% greater than 60 years of age. 67% of the editors worked in university teaching hospitals and 90% of publications were in English. The review process differed between journals with 59% using a review proforma, 52% reviewing an anonymised manuscript, 76% using a routine statistical review and 59% of journals used 2 reviewers routinely. In 89% of the editors surveyed, the editor was able to overrule the final decision of the reviewers. Important design factors considered for manuscript acceptance were that the study conclusions were justified (80%), that the statistical analysis was appropriate (76%), that the findings could change practice (72%). The level of evidence (70%) and type of study (62%) were deemed less important. When asked what factors were important in the manuscript influencing acceptance, 73% cited an understandable manuscript, 53% cited a well written manuscript and 50% a thorough literature review as very important factors. CONCLUSIONS: The editorial and review process in orthopaedic journals uses different approaches. There may be a risk of language bias among editors of orthopaedic journals with under-representation of non-English publications in the orthopaedic literature.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © 2011 Hing et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Keywords: Aged, Data Collection, Editorial Policies, Female, Humans, Language, MEDLINE, Male, Manuscripts as Topic, Middle Aged, Orthopedics, Peer Review, Research, Periodicals as Topic, Prospective Studies, Publication Bias, Publishing, Retrospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Humans, Data Collection, Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Prospective Studies, Language, Peer Review, Research, Orthopedics, MEDLINE, Publishing, Editorial Policies, Publication Bias, Aged, Middle Aged, Female, Male, Manuscripts as Topic, Periodicals as Topic, Orthopedics, 1103 Clinical Sciences
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS) > Vascular & Cardiac Surgery (INCCVC)
Journal or Publication Title: J Orthop Surg Res
ISSN: 1749-799X
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
28 April 2011Published
28 April 2011Accepted
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution 2.0
PubMed ID: 21527007
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: http://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/108613
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-19

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item