Related Experiment Videos
Editorial peer review: methodology and data collection
1Library of the Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago 60680.
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
|July 1, 1990
Summary
This study compared editorial peer review practices in U.S. medical journals. Interviews and questionnaires revealed differences in responses, especially on sensitive topics, with editors sometimes providing ideal rather than actual practices.
Area of Science:
- Medical Journal Publishing
- Scientific Communication
- Research Integrity
Background:
- Editorial peer review is crucial for medical journal quality.
- Practices may vary between high-impact and general medical journals.
- Understanding these practices informs journal standards and evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate and compare editorial peer review practices in two categories of U.S. medical journals.
- To analyze discrepancies between data collected via interviews and questionnaires.
- To assess the reliability of self-reported data in editorial surveys.
Main Methods:
- Comparative analysis of two journal groups (high-impact vs. general) indexed in Index Medicus.
- Data collection through pretested interviews and mailed questionnaires.
- Analysis of response rates, editor participation, and answer variations between methods.
Main Results:
- High editor participation rates for interviews (100% Group 1, 93.8% Group 2).
- A 69.4% questionnaire response rate suggests strong interest or effective follow-up.
- Approximately 11-15% answer differences between interviews and questionnaires were observed.
- Editors sometimes provided socially desirable answers on questionnaires for sensitive topics.
Conclusions:
- Initial interviews effectively guide questionnaire design for editorial surveys.
- Questionnaire data may not fully capture actual editorial practices, particularly for sensitive issues.
- Methodological choices in data collection impact the understanding of journal peer review processes.