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

Peer review and editorial decision-making

L Howard1, G Wilkinson

  • 1Institute of Psychiatry, London.

The British Journal of Psychiatry : the Journal of Mental Science
|December 16, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Precise Measurement of the Chromoelectric Dipole Moment of the Charm Quark.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

First Measurement of Time-Dependent CP Violation in the Flavor-Changing Neutral-Current Decay B^{0}→K_{S}^{0}μ^{+}μ^{-}.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Measurement of the Top-Quark Production Cross Section and Charge Asymmetry at LHCb.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Precise Measurement of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry with Entangled Hyperon-Antihyperon Pairs.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Searches for B^{0}→K^{+}π^{-}τ^{+}τ^{-} and B_{s}^{0}→K^{+}K^{-}τ^{+}τ^{-} Decays.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Observation of Λ[over ¯]p→K^{+}π^{+}π^{-}π^{0} and Λ[over ¯]p→K^{+}π^{+}π^{-}2π^{0}.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

The pressurised leaky funnel: rethinking recruitment, selection and retention in the UK psychiatry workforce.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Cutting through stigma: psychiatry and neurosurgery working together.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

A fourth pillar for evidence-based medicine: implications for psychiatry - CORRIGENDUM.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Understanding negative perceptions of psychiatrists on social media: lessons from public discourse and professional self-reflection.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Attachment-informed psychopharmacology in psychiatric care.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Acceptability and accuracy of point-of-care monitoring of lithium levels.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
See all related articles

Reviewers and editors at the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) agree on rejecting unsuitable manuscripts but show poor reliability in identifying high-quality submissions for publication.

Area of Science:

  • Psychiatry
  • Scholarly Publishing
  • Scientific Communication

Background:

  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) is a leading psychiatric journal.
  • Understanding editorial decision-making is crucial for effective scholarly publishing.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the editor's decision-making process at the BJP.
  • To investigate the correlation between reviewer assessments and editorial decisions.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective analysis of 400 consecutive manuscripts submitted to the BJP over six months.
  • Calculation of interrater reliability for reviewer assessments.
  • Logistic regression to assess the impact of reviewer rankings and assessment comprehensiveness on editorial decisions.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • 62% of manuscripts were sent for peer review.
  • Interrater reliability for reviewer rankings was poor (Kappa = 0.1).
  • Reviewer agreement was highest for manuscript rejection; reviewer rankings significantly predicted editorial rejection.

Conclusions:

  • Reviewers and editors demonstrate consensus on manuscripts unsuitable for publication.
  • There is limited agreement between reviewers and editors regarding the suitability of manuscripts for publication.