Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

What do peer reviewers do?

S Lock, J Smith

    JAMA
    |March 9, 1990
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Pediatricians and psychiatrists, serving as peer reviewers for the British Medical Journal, dedicate under two hours per manuscript. Psychiatrists review more general journal articles than pediatricians.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Rate of death from cervical cancer among native Indian women in British Columbia.

    CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne·1992
    Same author

    Screening for neuroblastoma in the north of England.

    BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·1992
    Same author

    Comparison of doxycycline and a chemically modified tetracycline inhibition of leukocyte functions.

    Research communications in chemical pathology and pharmacology·1992
    Same author

    Sequence of the gene encoding the mitochondrial capsule selenoprotein of mouse sperm: identification of three in-phase TGA selenocysteine codons.

    DNA and cell biology·1992
    Same author

    Screening for neuroblastoma in the northern region of England. Laboratory aspects.

    The American journal of pediatric hematology/oncology·1992
    Same author

    A pilot study of screening for neuroblastoma in the north of England.

    The American journal of pediatric hematology/oncology·1992
    Same journal

    Deescalation, Discontinuation, and Deimplementation Trials: Evaluating Whether and How to Do Less.

    JAMA·2026
    Same journal

    Surgical and Endoscopic Therapies for GERD.

    JAMA·2026
    Same journal

    The Psychedelic Therapies Executive Order: On Approval and Clinical Readiness.

    JAMA·2026
    Same journal

    "Suturing": Love, Death, and Perfection's Limits.

    JAMA·2026
    Same journal

    What Is Low Back Pain?

    JAMA·2026
    Same journal

    From Silicon Valley to the Vatican-The Expanding Debate on AI Ethics.

    JAMA·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Journal Refereeing
    • Scholarly Publishing Workload Analysis
    • Specialty-Specific Peer Review

    Background:

    • The British Medical Journal (BMJ) relies on peer reviewers to maintain publication quality.
    • Understanding the workload of these academic referees is crucial for sustainable scholarly publishing.
    • Previous studies have not specifically compared the refereeing burdens of different medical specialties.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To prospectively assess the peer-review workload of British Medical Journal (BMJ) referees over nine months.
    • To specifically compare the workload distribution between pediatricians and psychiatrists acting as referees.
    • To gather data on referee demographics and attitudes towards the peer-review process.

    Main Methods:

    • A prospective nine-month survey involving 343 selected referees from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) active referee pool.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Referees completed record forms for each manuscript reviewed and a questionnaire on their characteristics and attitudes.
  • Data analysis focused on manuscript volume, journal specialty, and time spent per review, with specific comparisons between pediatricians and psychiatrists.

    • Main Results:

    • A total of 301 referees (87.8%) completed the survey, with 146 also serving as editors.
    • Referees reviewed a median of 6 to 8 manuscripts, with psychiatrists reviewing slightly more (median 8) than pediatricians (median 6.5).
    • Psychiatrists reviewed a significantly higher proportion of manuscripts for general journals (13%) compared to pediatricians (9%), with all groups spending less than two hours per manuscript.

    Conclusions:

    • The peer-review workload for BMJ referees, including pediatricians and psychiatrists, is substantial but manageable, with less than two hours spent per manuscript.
    • Psychiatrists engage more with general medical journals in their refereeing duties compared to pediatricians.
    • The findings provide valuable insights into the demands placed on academic peer reviewers across different medical specialties.