Special article
The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00450-2Get rights and content

Abstract

PURPOSE: The fate of research manuscripts that have been rejected by medical journals is of interest to authors, editors, and peer reviewers, but previous studies were conducted before the widespread availability of computerized literature searches. We update the previous investigations of the fate of rejected research manuscripts by using an electronic literature search and a larger sample, a longer follow-up, and more descriptive journal indexes.

METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we examined 350 manuscripts rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a general medical journal, during 1993 and 1994. We assessed the number of manuscripts that were published after initial rejection, time to eventual publication, journal type (general versus specialty), and journal impact factor (higher scores indicated greater impact) and immediacy index.

RESULTS: Of 350 rejected manuscripts, 240 (69%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64% to 73%) were eventually published after a mean of 552 days (95% CI: 479 to 544 days, range 121 to 1,792 days). Of 226 rejected research articles and reviews, 159 (70%, 95% CI: 64% to 76%) were subsequently published in specialty journals. During 1993 and 1994, the mean impact factor for articles published in the Annals was 9.60 (95% CI: 9.56 to 9.64), compared with a mean of 3.09 (95% CI: 2.80 to 3.37) for the journals in which the rejected articles were subsequently published (mean difference 6.52, 95% CI: 6.24 to 6.81, P < 0.0001). The immediacy index was also lower for these journals. Time to publication had a weak negative correlation with the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published (correlation coefficient −0.15, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the manuscripts that were rejected from a large general medical journal were eventually published after an average of 18 months. Most were published in specialty journals with lower impact factor and immediacy index ratings.

Section snippets

Methods

The Annals maintains a database of all manuscripts submitted to the journal, regardless of type of article or its fate. All rejected Original Research articles, Reviews, and Brief Communications were selected as a historical cohort for 1993 and 1994. We chose these 2 years to provide sufficient opportunity (up to 6 years) for a rejected article to be published elsewhere. There were 3,552 research or review articles submitted to the Annals during 1993 and 1994, of which 3,180 were rejected

Results

Of 350 randomly selected articles that were rejected from the Annals, 240 (69%) were eventually published (95% CI: 64% to 73%; Figure 1). Of these, 14 were published as letters, 12 as reviews, and 214 as research articles. Thus the publication rate for the 226 research articles and reviews was 67% (95% CI: 62% to 72%). The majority (70%) of the articles were published in specialty journals (95% CI: 64% to 76%). For 10 (3%) of the 350 articles, a discussion was required between two of the

Discussion

Of 350 randomly selected manuscripts that were rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine during 1993 and 1994, more than two thirds were eventually published elsewhere, generally within 18 months. Of these, approximately two thirds were published in specialty journals. The journals of subsequent publication were generally rated with a significantly lower impact factor and immediacy index. There was a significant but weak correlation between time to publication and the impact factor, but not

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Christine Laine and Ms. Mary Beth Schaeffer for their comments and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

References (20)

  • F. Hecht et al.

    The journal “impact factor”a misnamed, misleading, misused measure

    Cancer Genet Cytogenet

    (1998)
  • H.C. Polk

    An editor’s perspective of the future for peer-reviewed traditional surgical journals

    Am J Surg

    (1991)
  • J.F. Polak

    The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1995)
  • E.J. Weber et al.

    Unpublished research from a medical specialty meetingwhy investigators fail to publish

    JAMA

    (1998)
  • J.M. Garfunkel et al.

    Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author’s evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts

    JAMA

    (1990)
  • E. Frank

    Authors’ criteria for selecting journals

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • M. Abby et al.

    Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • F.S. Chew

    Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1991)
  • S.A. Lock

    A Difficult BalanceEditorial Peer Review in Medicine

    (1985)
  • Institute for Scientific Information. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information,...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (66)

  • Towards an early-stage identification of emerging topics in science-The usability of bibliometric characteristics

    2015, Journal of Informetrics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Good examples for journals with a broad focus are Science or Nature. In accordance with the findings of Chew (1991) and Ray, Berkwits, and Davidoff (2000), we analyze if documents dealing with new emerging topics, for which publication in general might be more difficult, are published more often in smaller (more specialized) journals. This leads to our first hypothesis.:

  • Characteristics and fate of orthodontic articles submitted for publication: An exploratory study of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

    2015, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
    Citation Excerpt :

    First, the data collection and analysis reflects only articles submitted in 2008; this might not be an accurate representation of the types of articles currently submitted to the AJO-DO. It was decided to study articles from 2008 to give an adequate time frame for rejected articles to be published elsewhere, as previous medical studies have found that rejected articles are usually published within 3 to 5 years of initial rejection.11,12,17,19 Second, the results of this study might not be broadly applicable to all orthodontic manuscripts because each orthodontic journal tends to have a unique publication profile.20,21

  • Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis

    2013, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    It is also likely that authors often submit first to higher impact journals, giving these journals an opportunity to select trials with better design, conduct, and analysis. In a cohort study investigating the fate of the articles rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine, the authors found that 70% were subsequently published in lower impact subspecialty journals [32]. Consistent with previous studies [33–36], we found that 64% of RCTs from higher impact journals reported subgroup analyses, in contrast to the 26% of trials in lower impact journals that reported subgroup analyses.

View all citing articles on Scopus
1

Requests for reprints should be addressed to

View full text