Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

S. N. Goodman, J. Berlin, S. W. Fletcher, R. H. Fletcher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality. Setting: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine. Design: Masked before-after study. Manuscripts: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993. Measurements: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process). Results: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean. Conclusions: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-21
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume121
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Manuscripts
Internal Medicine
Research
Publications
Biomedical Research
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Goodman, S. N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1994). Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121(1), 11-21.

Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. / Goodman, S. N.; Berlin, J.; Fletcher, S. W.; Fletcher, R. H.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 121, No. 1, 1994, p. 11-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goodman, SN, Berlin, J, Fletcher, SW & Fletcher, RH 1994, 'Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 11-21.
Goodman, S. N. ; Berlin, J. ; Fletcher, S. W. ; Fletcher, R. H. / Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 1994 ; Vol. 121, No. 1. pp. 11-21.
@article{aee394e53e7a4a82a61a97c1f92fff52,
title = "Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality. Setting: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine. Design: Masked before-after study. Manuscripts: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993. Measurements: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process). Results: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3{\%} (95{\%} CI, 3.3{\%} to 11.3{\%}) from a baseline of 75{\%}. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50{\%} showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50{\%}, after correction for regression to the mean. Conclusions: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.",
author = "Goodman, {S. N.} and J. Berlin and Fletcher, {S. W.} and Fletcher, {R. H.}",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "121",
pages = "11--21",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

AU - Goodman, S. N.

AU - Berlin, J.

AU - Fletcher, S. W.

AU - Fletcher, R. H.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality. Setting: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine. Design: Masked before-after study. Manuscripts: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993. Measurements: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process). Results: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean. Conclusions: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.

AB - Objective: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality. Setting: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine. Design: Masked before-after study. Manuscripts: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993. Measurements: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process). Results: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean. Conclusions: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028576904&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028576904&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8198342

AN - SCOPUS:0028576904

VL - 121

SP - 11

EP - 21

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 1

ER -