The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts
View abstract on PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) adopted a stricter manuscript selection, lowering acceptance rates. Analysis shows most rejected papers were published elsewhere, with few appearing in higher-impact journals, suggesting the policy is largely effective.
Area Of Science
- Medical publishing
- Scientific journal editorial policies
Background
- Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) implemented a restrictive manuscript selection process in 2011.
- This policy aimed to reduce the acceptance rate from 25% to 12-15% through enhanced triage and rejection of manuscripts.
Purpose Of The Study
- To evaluate the impact of NDT's restrictive editorial policy on manuscript acceptance and publication in higher-impact journals.
- To assess whether important studies were being missed due to the triage and rejection process.
Main Methods
- Analysis of a random sample (approximately 10%) of manuscripts rejected by NDT in 2012.
- Tracking the publication history of rejected manuscripts in other journals.
- Independent assessment of the quality and impact of published rejected manuscripts.
Main Results
- 59% of triaged rejections and 61% of peer-reviewed rejections were accepted by other journals.
- Only a small fraction (4/104 and 7/93) of rejected manuscripts were published in journals with a higher impact factor than NDT.
- Citations for these subsequently published papers were comparable to typical publications in their respective journals.
Conclusions
- NDT's restrictive editorial policy appears largely successful in maintaining journal standards without significantly missing high-impact studies.
- While the risk of overlooking major contributions exists, current data suggests the policy is effective.
- Continued monitoring of rejected manuscript trajectories is recommended to ensure ongoing vigilance against 'big misses'.