Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers

Many journals provide peer reviewers with written instructions regarding review criteria, such as the originality of results, but little research has been done to investigate ways to improve or facilitate the peer review task.

To assess the value that peer reviewers place on receipt of supplemental materials (eg, abstracts of related papers and preprints of related unpublished manuscripts).

Questionnaire survey sent to all 733 peer reviewers recruited by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute to review 356 manuscripts consecutively sent out for review from February 24, 1997, through January 16, 1998. The inclusion of supplemental materials with manuscript review packages was optional.

The peer reviewers' assessment of the actual or potential usefulness of supplemental materials on the performance of peer review.

A total of 481 (66%) of 733 questionnaires were returned. Of the 471 respondents' questionnaires that could be used, 217 (46%) indicated that they received abstracts, and 44 (10%) of 458 respondents indicated that they received preprints. Higher proportions of peer reviewers who received supplemental materials than those who had not received them felt that they were (or would be) useful to them when reviewing the manuscript (63% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57%-69%] vs 45% [95% CI, 38%-52%]; P<.001) and to the peer review process in general (80% [95% CI, 75%-85%] vs 64% [95% CI, 58%-70%]; P<.001).

The majority of respondents indicated that supplemental materials helped (or would have helped) them evaluate manuscripts and valued them more highly when they actually received them.