engleski

Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal

Background: Timeliness is an important attribute of the peer review because it brings information promptly to its users. This has become even more important with the development of on-line submission and on-line peer review. Small journals usually have to rely on regular mail and traditional peer review. We evaluated the review time in a small medical journal outside of the mainstream science. Methods: We analyzed 1, 346 editorial requests for manuscript peer review sent out from the Croatian Medical Journal to 690 reviewers during February 1998-December 2001. Results: Peer reviewers' response rate was 78.6% (1, 057 out of 1, 346 requests for review), and the median review time 29 days (95%CI=28-31). Of the returned reviews, 554 (52.4%) came on time (before the deadline set by the editor) and the others came late. The median delay was 12 days (95% confidence interval [CI]=10-15days). There was no difference in delay for Croatian and non-Croatian manuscripts, but more reviews of articles from clinical medicine were delayed than those from public health. More reviews from non-Croatian or male reviewers were never returned to the editors. For reviews that came late, those from male reviewers were more delayed than those from female reviewers (median 13 days, 95%CI=11-15, vs. median 8 days, 95%CI=5-12). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the odds for reviewer's positive response to the editorial request for manuscript review were greater for female Croatian reviewers who received up to three review requests. Conclusions: Peer review time in a small general medical journal may be comparable to review times in larger and more prestigious journals. The choice of reviewers may improve the expediency of the peer review: Editors from small journals may profit from building and educating local peer reviewers, having in mind that female reviewers may provide more expedient reviews.

peer review; journals

nije evidentirano