Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial

Area of Science:

• Medical Publishing
• Scientific Communication

Background:

• Peer review is essential but time-consuming for scientific publications.
• Balancing peer review with editorial oversight is crucial for managing bias and ensuring quality.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate an early manuscript screening method as a more efficient alternative to traditional peer review.
• To assess the impact of early screening on decision time, reviewer burden, and acceptance rates.

Main Methods:

• A randomized trial compared traditional external peer review with an early editorial screening process.
• Manuscripts were either sent for external review or screened by editors for low acceptance probability.

Main Results:

• Early screening significantly reduced decision time (18 days vs. 48 days) and the number of reviewers needed (0.7 vs. 2.3).
• Final acceptance rates were similar between the traditional and early screening groups (p = 0.41).
• Reviewer ratings of scientific and clinical impact were comparable for accepted manuscripts.

Conclusions:

• Early manuscript screening is an efficient method that substantially decreases submission-to-decision time.
• This approach reduces the burden on reviewers with minimal impact on the quality of published work.
• Editorial screening has been adopted as the standard journal policy.