Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Obstetrics & Gynecology. 129(2):243-248, 2017 FebPMID: 28079780Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Obstetrics and Gynecology/Maternal-Fetal MedicineForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Gynecology | *Medicine | *Obstetrics | *Peer Review, Research/mt [Methods] | Humans | Journal Impact Factor | Observer Variation | Retrospective StudiesYear: 2017Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006ISSN:
  • 0029-7844
Name of journal: Obstetrics and gynecologyAbstract: CONCLUSION: Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using chi, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation.RESULTS: There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61+/-0.75 compared with 3.44+/-0.78, 3.42+/-0.72, 3.35+/-0.75, and 3.32+/-0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]).All authors: Benner RS, Chescheir NC, Hazen N, Parikh LI, Riggs TWFiscal year: FY2017Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2017-05-06
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 28079780 Available 28079780

Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006

CONCLUSION: Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using chi, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation.

RESULTS: There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61+/-0.75 compared with 3.44+/-0.78, 3.42+/-0.72, 3.35+/-0.75, and 3.32+/-0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]).

English

Powered by Koha