- Email: [email protected]
Peer Review and Manuscript Processes for the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
EDITORIAL PEER REVIEW AND MANUSCRIPT PROCESSES FOR THE JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS Claire Johnson, MSEd, DC Editor in Chief, JMPT
ABSTRACT Peer review is an essential component of scholarly activity that provides guidance for, and increases the quality of, manuscript processing. This is a brief update about selected peer review outcome measures for the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. This editorial evaluates the number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript and the number of days to first decision for the periods January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, and January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2008. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:255-256) Key Indexing Terms: Peer Review; Publishing; Editorial Process; Chiropractic
hree and a half years have passed since I was honored with becoming the editor of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT). In this short time, many changes have been implemented. Although changes have been made, it is not certain they have made a difference in the quality of the journal until outcomes are reviewed. Currently, the JMPT is the only journal with primarily chiropractic content that is included in MEDLINE.1 Requirements to be listed in MEDLINE include the demonstration of objective editorial and external peer review processes. Thus, it is important that these measures are reviewed. When I first became the editor in 2005, one of the concerns that authors expressed to me was the amount of time that elapsed from submission to first decision, and they requested that this time be reduced. To address this concern and facilitate the review process, we transitioned the journal from a paper- and postal mail–based system to an entirely online manuscript processing and peer review system.2 This system allows the editor, reviewers, and authors to track a manuscript at any point in time of the review process. Authors and reviewers are notified immediately when a decision or request is made. All actions, comments, and decisions are stored and tracked in this system. It was hoped that the new Web-based system would allow for faster notification times and more timely manuscript processing.
T
0161-4754/$34.00 Copyright © 2008 by National University of Health Sciences. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.04.001
Another author concern regarded the number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript. Some authors felt that having only one reviewer provided biased or limited feedback and that their manuscripts were not being appraised adequately. To increase the breadth and depth of peer reviewer comments, the number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript was increased. Additional expert peer reviewers have been and continue to be added to the reviewer database to increase the number of qualified reviewers available. Active peer reviewers have been recognized in previous issues of the JMPT, a process that promotes transparency of the journal's peer review procedures.3-5 Reviewers are invited based upon their area of expertise in a topic area of the paper and are not limited to the Editorial Review Board. It was hoped that increasing the number of reviewers in the peer review pool would increase the number of completed reviews for each manuscript.
DISCUSSION To assess if there has been improvement with the number of reviews and a reduction in time to first decision, an analysis was performed on the number of papers processed through peer review. Data were retrieved from the manuscript logs that had been recorded in an Excel spreadsheet from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, by previous JMPT staff. Data from January 1, 2005, to March 21, 2008, were retrieved from the journal's electronic manuscript tracking system, which is hosted by the publisher (Elsevier). Data from all manuscripts that were sent to peer review were included in this analysis. 255
256
Johnson Peer Review and Manuscript Processes
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics May 2008
Table 1. Outcome measures for previous and current peer review and manuscript processing practices
No. of papers submitted Average no. of completed reviews per manuscript No. of unique peer reviewers who completed reviews in time Average no. of days for peer reviewer to return review from date invited Average no. of days from author submission to editor's first decision notice
Submissions normally not sent to peer review, such as letters to the editor, were not included. Only peer reviewers who completed their reviews were included; those who were invited but did not return their reviews were excluded (Table 1). In reviewing these data, it is apparent that the JMPT has enjoyed an increase in manuscript submissions in the 2005 to 2008 period. The data also reveal that a more than 2-fold increase in the number of active peer reviewers was achieved during this time and that the average number of reviews per manuscript has nearly doubled. For the period January 2005 to March 2008, the analysis shows that the average time for reviewers to return their reviews is 16.3 days, which is less than half of the previous period, and the time from submission to first decision is 32.2 days. One may wonder why there is a delay from the time reviewers turn in their reviews to notification of author. During this time, the manuscript is evaluated further for quality and for technical items necessary for publication. These items include reference formatting, clarity of figures, proper use of MeSH headings, and completion of required materials (eg, copyright forms, permissions to print). Ensuring that these items are in accordance with the JMPT publication standards in advance improves the publication process and reduces the time to final publication. Although there is a 32.2-day return to authors, authors currently take 56.6 days, on average, to return their revisions. Our next step to reduce the time to publication may be to look at ways to reduce the return time of author revisions. According to a study done by Ware and Monkman6 of international scholars, a majority (67%) of authors are satisfied with the length of time from submission to decision being 15 to 30 days, whereas a minority (44%)
Jan 1, 1998, to Dec 31, 2002 (5 y)
Jan 1, 2005, to March 31, 2008 (3.25 y)
Average, 123.2 manuscripts/y (n = 616) 1.5 reviewers/manuscript 80 unique reviewers 41.5 d 46.4 d
Average, 136.6 manuscripts/y (n = 444) 2.6 reviewers/manuscript 174 unique reviewers 16.3 d 32.2 d
are satisfied when the time to decision is 1 to 2 months. It appears that the JMPT is closer to the 15- to 30-day target time. We will continue to look for ways to improve both speed and quality.
CONCLUSION Based upon the journal's data, an increase in number of reviewers per manuscript and a reduction in time to first decision have been accomplished. I am confident that efforts made to improve manuscript processing and peer review have been fruitful, but we will endeavor to improve this process through a continuous quality improvement cycle. Should you have suggestions for improvement, please email me at [email protected].
REFERENCES 1. National Library of Medicine. List of journals indexed for MEDLINE 2008 [monograph on the Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine; 2008 [cited 2008 Apr 6]. Available from: ftp://nlmpubs.nlm.nih.gov/online/journals/ljiweb. pdf. 2. Johnson C. Improving the timeliness of manuscript handling. J Manip Physiol Ther 2008;28:291-2. 3. Johnson C. JMPT Peer Review for 2005. J Manip Physiol Ther 2006;29:181. 4. Johnson C. JMPT Peer Review for 2006. J Manip Physiol Ther 2007;30:81-2. 5. Johnson C. JMPT Peer Review for 2007. J Manip Physiol Ther 2008;31:1. 6. Ware M, Monkman M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community—an international study. Mark Ware Consulting Ltd [cited 2008 Apr 6]. Available from: http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm.
ABSTRACT Peer review is an essential component of scholarly activity that provides guidance for, and increases the quality of, manuscript processing. This is a brief update about selected peer review outcome measures for the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. This editorial evaluates the number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript and the number of days to first decision for the periods January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, and January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2008. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:255-256) Key Indexing Terms: Peer Review; Publishing; Editorial Process; Chiropractic
hree and a half years have passed since I was honored with becoming the editor of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT). In this short time, many changes have been implemented. Although changes have been made, it is not certain they have made a difference in the quality of the journal until outcomes are reviewed. Currently, the JMPT is the only journal with primarily chiropractic content that is included in MEDLINE.1 Requirements to be listed in MEDLINE include the demonstration of objective editorial and external peer review processes. Thus, it is important that these measures are reviewed. When I first became the editor in 2005, one of the concerns that authors expressed to me was the amount of time that elapsed from submission to first decision, and they requested that this time be reduced. To address this concern and facilitate the review process, we transitioned the journal from a paper- and postal mail–based system to an entirely online manuscript processing and peer review system.2 This system allows the editor, reviewers, and authors to track a manuscript at any point in time of the review process. Authors and reviewers are notified immediately when a decision or request is made. All actions, comments, and decisions are stored and tracked in this system. It was hoped that the new Web-based system would allow for faster notification times and more timely manuscript processing.
T
0161-4754/$34.00 Copyright © 2008 by National University of Health Sciences. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.04.001
Another author concern regarded the number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript. Some authors felt that having only one reviewer provided biased or limited feedback and that their manuscripts were not being appraised adequately. To increase the breadth and depth of peer reviewer comments, the number of reviewers assigned to each manuscript was increased. Additional expert peer reviewers have been and continue to be added to the reviewer database to increase the number of qualified reviewers available. Active peer reviewers have been recognized in previous issues of the JMPT, a process that promotes transparency of the journal's peer review procedures.3-5 Reviewers are invited based upon their area of expertise in a topic area of the paper and are not limited to the Editorial Review Board. It was hoped that increasing the number of reviewers in the peer review pool would increase the number of completed reviews for each manuscript.
DISCUSSION To assess if there has been improvement with the number of reviews and a reduction in time to first decision, an analysis was performed on the number of papers processed through peer review. Data were retrieved from the manuscript logs that had been recorded in an Excel spreadsheet from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, by previous JMPT staff. Data from January 1, 2005, to March 21, 2008, were retrieved from the journal's electronic manuscript tracking system, which is hosted by the publisher (Elsevier). Data from all manuscripts that were sent to peer review were included in this analysis. 255
256
Johnson Peer Review and Manuscript Processes
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics May 2008
Table 1. Outcome measures for previous and current peer review and manuscript processing practices
No. of papers submitted Average no. of completed reviews per manuscript No. of unique peer reviewers who completed reviews in time Average no. of days for peer reviewer to return review from date invited Average no. of days from author submission to editor's first decision notice
Submissions normally not sent to peer review, such as letters to the editor, were not included. Only peer reviewers who completed their reviews were included; those who were invited but did not return their reviews were excluded (Table 1). In reviewing these data, it is apparent that the JMPT has enjoyed an increase in manuscript submissions in the 2005 to 2008 period. The data also reveal that a more than 2-fold increase in the number of active peer reviewers was achieved during this time and that the average number of reviews per manuscript has nearly doubled. For the period January 2005 to March 2008, the analysis shows that the average time for reviewers to return their reviews is 16.3 days, which is less than half of the previous period, and the time from submission to first decision is 32.2 days. One may wonder why there is a delay from the time reviewers turn in their reviews to notification of author. During this time, the manuscript is evaluated further for quality and for technical items necessary for publication. These items include reference formatting, clarity of figures, proper use of MeSH headings, and completion of required materials (eg, copyright forms, permissions to print). Ensuring that these items are in accordance with the JMPT publication standards in advance improves the publication process and reduces the time to final publication. Although there is a 32.2-day return to authors, authors currently take 56.6 days, on average, to return their revisions. Our next step to reduce the time to publication may be to look at ways to reduce the return time of author revisions. According to a study done by Ware and Monkman6 of international scholars, a majority (67%) of authors are satisfied with the length of time from submission to decision being 15 to 30 days, whereas a minority (44%)
Jan 1, 1998, to Dec 31, 2002 (5 y)
Jan 1, 2005, to March 31, 2008 (3.25 y)
Average, 123.2 manuscripts/y (n = 616) 1.5 reviewers/manuscript 80 unique reviewers 41.5 d 46.4 d
Average, 136.6 manuscripts/y (n = 444) 2.6 reviewers/manuscript 174 unique reviewers 16.3 d 32.2 d
are satisfied when the time to decision is 1 to 2 months. It appears that the JMPT is closer to the 15- to 30-day target time. We will continue to look for ways to improve both speed and quality.
CONCLUSION Based upon the journal's data, an increase in number of reviewers per manuscript and a reduction in time to first decision have been accomplished. I am confident that efforts made to improve manuscript processing and peer review have been fruitful, but we will endeavor to improve this process through a continuous quality improvement cycle. Should you have suggestions for improvement, please email me at [email protected].
REFERENCES 1. National Library of Medicine. List of journals indexed for MEDLINE 2008 [monograph on the Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine; 2008 [cited 2008 Apr 6]. Available from: ftp://nlmpubs.nlm.nih.gov/online/journals/ljiweb. pdf. 2. Johnson C. Improving the timeliness of manuscript handling. J Manip Physiol Ther 2008;28:291-2. 3. Johnson C. JMPT Peer Review for 2005. J Manip Physiol Ther 2006;29:181. 4. Johnson C. JMPT Peer Review for 2006. J Manip Physiol Ther 2007;30:81-2. 5. Johnson C. JMPT Peer Review for 2007. J Manip Physiol Ther 2008;31:1. 6. Ware M, Monkman M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community—an international study. Mark Ware Consulting Ltd [cited 2008 Apr 6]. Available from: http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm.