TY - JOUR
T1 - Decline to review a manuscript
T2 - Insight and implications for AJR reviewers, authors, and editorial staff
AU - Raniga, Sameer B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Roentgen Ray Society
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - OBJECTIVE. The objective of the study was to evaluate and categorize the decline-to-review response to a manuscript review invitation that would allow American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) editorial staff to improve the peer review process and to reduce manuscript turnaround time. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective analysis included 9366 decline-to-review responses received by AJR editorial staff between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017 (a 3-year period). The responses were sorted into six broad categories: no reason given, reviewer was overcommitted (with academic or personal commitments), manuscript was not in an area of the reviewer’s expertise, the reviewer had already committed to a simultaneous AJR manuscript review, the reviewer claimed a conflict of interest, and miscellaneous and otherwise not listed reasons. RESULTS. The 9366 declined reviews were declined according to six general categories: no reason (3251, 34.7%), overcommitted (4629, 49.4%), not an area of expertise (1181, 12.6%), simultaneous AJR manuscript review (235, 2.5%), conflict of interest (55, 0.6%), and miscellaneous (15, 0.2%). CONCLUSION. The analyzed data provide a valuable insight for AJR editorial staff and reviewers to further improve the peer review process. The results and subsequent actions could help to reduce decline-to-review responses, which will help shorten the manuscript turnaround time and contribute to a timely decision on manuscripts for authors.
AB - OBJECTIVE. The objective of the study was to evaluate and categorize the decline-to-review response to a manuscript review invitation that would allow American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) editorial staff to improve the peer review process and to reduce manuscript turnaround time. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective analysis included 9366 decline-to-review responses received by AJR editorial staff between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017 (a 3-year period). The responses were sorted into six broad categories: no reason given, reviewer was overcommitted (with academic or personal commitments), manuscript was not in an area of the reviewer’s expertise, the reviewer had already committed to a simultaneous AJR manuscript review, the reviewer claimed a conflict of interest, and miscellaneous and otherwise not listed reasons. RESULTS. The 9366 declined reviews were declined according to six general categories: no reason (3251, 34.7%), overcommitted (4629, 49.4%), not an area of expertise (1181, 12.6%), simultaneous AJR manuscript review (235, 2.5%), conflict of interest (55, 0.6%), and miscellaneous (15, 0.2%). CONCLUSION. The analyzed data provide a valuable insight for AJR editorial staff and reviewers to further improve the peer review process. The results and subsequent actions could help to reduce decline-to-review responses, which will help shorten the manuscript turnaround time and contribute to a timely decision on manuscripts for authors.
KW - Decline to review
KW - Manuscript turnaround time
KW - Peer review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082123866&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85082123866&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2214/AJR.19.22000
DO - 10.2214/AJR.19.22000
M3 - Article
C2 - 31967499
AN - SCOPUS:85082123866
SN - 0361-803X
VL - 214
SP - 723
EP - 726
JO - American Journal of Roentgenology
JF - American Journal of Roentgenology
IS - 4
ER -