Special articleThe fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal
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)
- et al.
The journal “impact factor”a misnamed, misleading, misused measure
Cancer Genet Cytogenet
(1998) An editor’s perspective of the future for peer-reviewed traditional surgical journals
Am J Surg
(1991)The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process
Am J Roentgenol
(1995)- et al.
Unpublished research from a medical specialty meetingwhy investigators fail to publish
JAMA
(1998) - et al.
Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author’s evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts
JAMA
(1990) Authors’ criteria for selecting journals
JAMA
(1994)- et al.
Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts
JAMA
(1994) Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR
Am J Roentgenol
(1991)A Difficult BalanceEditorial Peer Review in Medicine
(1985)- Institute for Scientific Information. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information,...
Cited by (66)
Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period
2021, Medicina IntensivaTowards an early-stage identification of emerging topics in science-The usability of bibliometric characteristics
2015, Journal of InformetricsCitation 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 OrthopedicsCitation 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 EpidemiologyCitation 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.
- 1
Requests for reprints should be addressed to