Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors' and authors' satisfaction with peer review? A cross‐sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields. Issue 2 (8th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pranić, Shelly M.; Malički, Mario; Marušić, Stjepan Ljudevit; Mehmani, Bahar; Marušić, Ana
• Is Part Of: Learned publishing. Volume 34:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: 187
• Page End: 197
• Publication Date: 2020-11-08
• Subjects: Scholarly publishing -- Periodicals; 070.5
• DOI: 10.1002/leap.1344
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0953-1513

Abstract

Abstract: Perception of review quality by authors and editors may play a vital role in helping to keep the peer review process constructive. Comprehensive studies examining author and editor perceptions of reviews of manuscripts from different disciplines are rare. We assessed satisfaction of corresponding authors and opinions of editors with reviewer‐generated reports and reviewers' recommendations and checked whether there was association between authors' and editors' perceptions and recommendations in 12 Elsevier journals across four disciplines. We used a modified Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to measure review quality for 809 unique manuscripts from which we accessed 1, 313 reviews and recommendations, 331 authors' perception of the review's helpfulness before editor's decision, and 541 editor's opinions regarding both review timeliness and impact on decision. Authors were most satisfied with reviews that recommended acceptance compared to revision or rejection. Reviews that recommended revisions had highest quality as reflected by the RQI. Authors highly rated their satisfaction with review constructiveness from natural sciences, and editors for the same subject also highly rated timeliness and reviews' influence on publication. Editors' opinion regarding the impact of review on their publication decision and RQI were associated. Our findings suggest that more constructive reviews may better guide the editorial decision‐making process.