Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2007.12.025

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Volume 58, Issue 4, April 2008, Pages 632-635

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2007.12.025 Get rights and content

Background

Submissions to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD) undergo a rigorous peer-review process. However, little is known regarding the fate of manuscripts declined by the JAAD.

Objective

We sought to: (1) determine the proportion of manuscripts declined by the JAAD that are subsequently published elsewhere; (2) identify the journals in which they were published; and (3) study whether the authors of declined manuscripts adopted in their final publications the changes suggested by the JAAD reviewers.

Methods

We reviewed the outcomes of the 489 submissions declined by the JAAD during two 4-month periods: from March 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004, and from March 1, 2005, to June 30, 2005.

Results

Of the 981 manuscripts submitted to JAAD during the two 4-month periods studied, 489 manuscripts (50%) were declined. Among the declined manuscripts, 201 (41%) had been subsequently published in other medical journals as of March 1, 2007. Among the 55 journals that published manuscripts declined by JAAD, 23 (42%) were nondermatology journals. The median impact factor for these 55 journals was 1.638, compared with the JAAD's impact factor of 2.402. Among the declined manuscripts, Case Reports comprised the largest proportion (n = 149, 31%), followed by Original Research Reports (n = 90, 18%). Overall, 46 (51%) rejected Original Research Reports were subsequently published, compared with 145 (36%) rejected submissions in other categories that were later published (P < .01). Among the 101 subsequently published manuscripts for which full texts were available, 82% of the authors incorporated at least one change suggested by the JAAD reviewers. The manuscripts that adopted JAAD-reviewer suggestions were published in journals with higher impact factors than those that did not incorporate any JAAD-reviewer suggestions (P = .0305).

Limitations

It is possible that the average lag time of 28 months in this study is not sufficient for some rejected manuscripts to reach subsequent publication.

Conclusions

Approximately half of the manuscripts rejected by the JAAD were subsequently published in other journals within 28 months, among which, roughly 40% went to nondermatology journals. The median impact factor of the journals that published JAAD-rejected manuscripts was lower than that of the JAAD. Rejected Original Research Reports have a significantly higher probability of being subsequently published than other category submissions. This may be a result of relative quality of Original Research Reports versus submissions for other sections of the journal (eg, Case Reports). Manuscripts that adopted JAAD-reviewer suggestions were subsequently published in journals with higher impact factors than those that did not incorporate JAAD-reviewer suggestions. This indicates that peer-reviewer comments can be useful and important for improving the quality of scientific publications.

Section snippets

Methods

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass. All submissions to the JAAD during the following two periods were reviewed: from March 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004, and from March 1, 2005, to June 30, 2005. During these 8 months, 981 manuscripts were submitted for peer review in JAAD. Among them, 489 submissions were rejected during these two periods.

We investigated the outcome of the 489 rejected submissions. For each rejected manuscript,

Results

Of the 981 manuscripts submitted to the JAAD from March 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004, and from March 1, 2005, to June 30, 2005, 489 manuscripts (50%) were declined by the JAAD (Fig 1). Among the 489 declined manuscripts, 201 (41%) were subsequently published in other medical journals, and 288 (59%) were not found in the MEDLINE search. Among the 55 journals that published JAAD-rejected manuscripts, 23 (41.8%) were nondermatology journals. These nondermatology journals included Annals of Plastic

Discussion

Approximately half of the submissions to the JAAD during the two 4-month periods studied were declined. Among the manuscripts declined by the JAAD, approximately 40% were subsequently published in other medical journals. This indicates that, after rejection by the JAAD, authors have a reasonable likelihood of publishing their manuscripts elsewhere. Interestingly, more than 40% of the 55 journals that published manuscripts declined by the JAAD were nondermatology journals. The median impact

References (8)

N.J. Jellinek et al.
The clinical influence of the JAAD
J Am Acad Dermatol
(2004)
R.P. Dellavalle et al.
Refining dermatology journal impact factors using PageRank
J Am Acad Dermatol
(2007)
T.J. Liesegang et al.
The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003
Am J Ophthalmol
(2007)
B. Nemery
What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine?
Occup Environ Med
(2001)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (30)

Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing
2022, Journal of Informetrics
Citation Excerpt :
Peer review is considered as a unreliable system (Ernst, Saradeth & Resch, 1993; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1992). The effectiveness of the conclusions given by reviewers is also usually suspected (Armstrong, Shereene, Alexandra & Jeffrey, 2008; Chubin & Hackett, 1990). Although peer review can add value, sometimes they can lead to excellent papers being rejected (Siler, Lee & Bero, 2015).
Peer review plays an essential role in the scholarly publishing life cycle. Using the verified peer review records of reviewers who use the Publons, we employed review length as a potential indicator of the effort researchers spend on peer review. We then examined the associations between various factors and review length. Special focus was placed on estimating the relationships between non-academic (economic and sociological aspects) factors and review length. Our results show that gender, country-level cultural backgrounds, and country-level economic backgrounds were significantly associated with review length. In addition, there are significant associations of disciplines (humanities & social sciences or hard sciences), English proficiency, publications, and verified reviews with review length.
Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period
2021, Medicina Intensiva
Conocer el destino de los trabajos rechazados en Medicina Intensiva (MI) en el período del 2015 al 2017 con seguimiento hasta el 2019.
Estudio retrospectivo observacional.
Publicaciones en revistas biomédicas.
Manuscritos rechazados en la revista Medicina Intensiva.
Ninguna
Tiempo de publicación, factor de impacto (FI), citas generadas y variables asociadas con la publicación.
De 344 originales y 263 cartas científicas, se rechazaron 420 (69,2%). Se publicaron después 205 (48,8%) y 66 de ellos generaron 180 citas. El FI de las revistas fue menor en 173 casos (84,4%). En 21, el número de citas válidas para FI fue mayor que el FI de MI. El origen del manuscrito odds ratio (OR) 2,11 (IC 95% 1,29 a 3,46), la mujer como autora OR 1,58 (IC 95% 1,03 a 2,44), que estuviera en lengua inglesa OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1,41 a 4,0) y que el artículo hubiera pasado a revisores OR 1,71 (IC 95% 1,10 a 2,66) se asociaron con mayor tasa de publicación en revistas indexadas en PubMed.
Los artículos rechazados en MI tienen una tasa media de publicación en otras revistas, principalmente con menos FI y generando menor número de citas que el FI de MI.
To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019.
Retrospective observational study.
Biomedical journals publication.
Rejected manuscripts in MI journal.
None.
Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication.
The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29 – 3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database.
The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.
A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies
2018, Journal of the American Dental Association
The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies.
The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors (≥ 1.452 and ≤ 1.436, respectively).
Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P = .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P = .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P = .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P = .001), registration of clinical trials (P = .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P = .008).
Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies.
Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal.
Peer Review-Past, Present, and Future
2018, Medical and Scientific Publishing: Author, Editor, and Reviewer Perspectives
This chapter focuses on peer review of manuscripts on original research submitted for consideration for publication in scientific and medical journals. Editors of journals use external experts in the manuscript topic to scrutinize new manuscripts to ensure certain standards of quality are met before they can be accepted for publication. Topics covered include the past, present, and future of peer review, how to find reviewers, how to review manuscripts, and a potpourri of related peer review issues. These range from types of peer review systems, comparison of quality of reports from different systems, improvement of manuscripts after peer review, conflicts of interest of reviewers, manipulation of peer review by fake reviewers, what happens to rejected manuscripts, time spent in, and the sustainability of peer review.
Peer Review—Past, Present, and Future
2017, Medical and Scientific Publishing: Author, Editor, and Reviewer Perspectives
This chapter focuses on peer review of manuscripts on original research submitted for consideration for publication in scientific and medical journals. Editors of journals use external experts in the manuscript topic to scrutinize new manuscripts to ensure certain standards of quality are met before they can be accepted for publication. Topics covered include the past, present, and future of peer review, how to find reviewers, how to review manuscripts, and a potpourri of related peer review issues. These range from types of peer review systems, comparison of quality of reports from different systems, improvement of manuscripts after peer review, conflicts of interest of reviewers, manipulation of peer review by fake reviewers, what happens to rejected manuscripts, time spent in, and the sustainability of peer review.
Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal
2015, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Citation Excerpt :
Previous studies have noted different factors that influenced likelihood of publication in their respective journals. These factors have included content of the submitted manuscripts, location and gender of the submitting author (10), and prior publication in field-specific journals (8, 10, 12). Prior studies have also noted a trend in subsequent publication of rejected manuscripts in journals with a lower Impact Factor (IF) and in the authors' regions of origin (8).
To evaluate characteristics associated with higher rates of acceptance for original manuscripts submitted for publication to the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (IJROBP) and describe the fate of rejected manuscripts.
Manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP from May 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010, and May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, were evaluated for author demographics and acceptance status. A PubMed search was performed for each IJROBP-rejected manuscript to ascertain whether the manuscript was ultimately published elsewhere. The Impact Factor of the accepting journal and the number of citations of the published manuscript were also collected.
Of the 500 included manuscripts, 172 (34.4%) were accepted and 328 (65.6%) were rejected. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates according to gender or degree of the submitting author, but there were significant differences seen based on the submitting author's country, rank, and h-index. On multivariate analysis, earlier year submitted (P<.0001) and higher author h-index (P=.006) remained significantly associated with acceptance into the IJROBP. Two hundred thirty-five IJROBP-rejected manuscripts (71.7%) were ultimately published in a PubMed-listed journal as of July 2014. There were no significant differences in any submitting author characteristics. Journals accepting IJROBP-rejected manuscripts had a lower median [interquartile range] 2013 impact factor compared with the IJROBP (2.45 [1.53-3.71] vs 4.176). The IJROBP-rejected manuscripts ultimately published elsewhere had a lower median [interquartile range] number of citations (1 [0-4] vs 6 [2-11]; P<.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis.
The acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP is approximately one-third, and approximately 70% of rejected manuscripts are ultimately published in other PubMed-listed journals, but these ultimate-destination journals usually have a lower impact factor, leading to fewer citations and overall visibility.

View all citing articles on Scopus

: Funding sources: None.

: Disclosure: Dr Bernhard was the editor for and Dr Kimball was an associate editor for the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology at the time the manuscript was accepted. Dr Armstrong and Ms Idriss have no conflicts of interest to declare.

: Reprints not available from the authors.

View full text

Article preview

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Section snippets

Methods

Results

Discussion

References (8)

The clinical influence of the JAAD

J Am Acad Dermatol

Refining dermatology journal impact factors using PageRank

J Am Acad Dermatol

The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003

Am J Ophthalmol

What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine?

Occup Environ Med

Cited by (30)

Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing

Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period

A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies

Peer Review-Past, Present, and Future

Peer Review—Past, Present, and Future

Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal

ReportFate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Section snippets

Methods

Results

Discussion

J Am Acad Dermatol

J Am Acad Dermatol

The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003

Am J Ophthalmol

What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine?

Occup Environ Med

Report
Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology