A health sciences researcher’s experience of manuscript review comments, 2020–2022

South African Family Practice

Field Value
Title A health sciences researcher’s experience of manuscript review comments, 2020–2022
Creator Joubert, Gina
Subject — review comments; manuscript review; publication; peer review; review feedback; experience; health sciences.
Description Background: Peer review frequently improves a manuscript, but authors may consider some reviewer feedback negative, inappropriate or unclear. This study aims to summarise and analyse review comments received by authors.Methods: This longitudinal study included all submissions of which the researcher was an author, reviewed by any journal during 2020–2022. First-round reviews were retrieved from emails and documents received by the authors or the faculty’s medical editors or the journal platforms. A confidential datasheet with review items compiled from literature and the researcher’s experience as author and reviewer was completed for each submission. Review comments were noted verbatim for subjective items such as rude or vague statements.Results: The 65 submissions received 118 reviews from 36 journals, mainly in the form of unstructured narrative reports (59%). The majority of first-round reviews (58%), including those for rejected submissions, contained some positive comments. Reviewers frequently (75% of reviews, 88% of submissions) required some expansion of information. Vague and incorrect statements occurred in 15% and 18% of reviews, respectively. Only two reviews contained statements that could be considered rude. The types of comments made were associated with the review format.Conclusion: The majority of reviews contained some positive comments and rude comments were extremely rare. Reviewers frequently requested the expansion of information provided.Contribution: This study gives insight to authors, reviewers and editors regarding the type and tone of review comments. This could guide authors during manuscript preparation and authors, reviewers and editors during the review process.
Publisher AOSIS
Date 2023-10-25
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion — —
Format text/html application/epub+zip text/xml application/pdf
Identifier 10.4102/safp.v65i1.5753
Source South African Family Practice; Vol 65, No 1 (2023): Part 4; 5 pages 2078-6204 2078-6190
Language eng
The following web links (URLs) may trigger a file download or direct you to an alternative webpage to gain access to a publication file format of the published article:

https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5753/8261 https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5753/8262 https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5753/8263 https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5753/8264
Coverage — — —
Rights Copyright (c) 2023 Gina Joubert https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0