This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weir, E.
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weir, E.
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, K. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Peer review
Right arrow CMAJ editorial policy
CMAJ • October 19, 1999; 161 (8)
© 1999 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Editorials
Éditoriaux

How quickly does CMAJ evaluate submissions?

Erica Weir, MD, MSc and K. S. Joseph, MD, PhD

Dr. Weir is the Editorial Fellow of CMAJ. Dr. Joseph is an Associate Editor of CMAJ and Assistant Professor, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Dalhousie University.

The impact of original research depends partly on the timeliness of its publication. To improve the impact of CMAJ we are intent on reducing the interval between manuscript receipt and publication.1 As a first step we audited the manuscripts processed by CMAJ from January to April 1999 to determine the proportion of original research articles and related submissions that were selected for peer review and the time taken to make a first editorial decision on these manuscripts once peer review was complete.

Between January and April 1999 CMAJ processed 568 manuscripts. Of these, 157 (28%) were original research and other scientific articles considered for peer review. Of the remainder, 77 (14%) were solicited editorials and special supplements, 109 (19%) were letters to the editor and 225 (40%) were articles such as news items, features and book reviews; of these categories, only special supplements are typically peer reviewed.

Of the 157 original research and other scientific articles in the first category, 36 (23%) were rejected without peer review on the basis of the independent assessments of two CMAJ editors. Usually papers are rejected for reasons relating to relevance, appeal to the CMAJ readership, methodology and originality. The mean time taken to come to the decision to reject without peer review was 15 days, and by 4 weeks a decision to reject had been made for 32 (89%) of these papers.

Peer review assessments were solicited for the remaining 121 (77%) original research and other scientific manuscripts. As a rule we require at least 2 peer reviews before a manuscript is advanced to the weekly editors' meeting, where 6 editors decide to accept, reject, or request a revision for the paper. An editorial decision was made on 65 (54%) of these manuscripts by 8 weeks from the date of submission and on 112 (93%) by 12 weeks. The mean time to first editorial decision for articles that were peer reviewed was 59 days. TABLE FIGURE


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1: Time to first editorial decision on original research articles and other manuscripts considered for peer review by CMAJ (January-April 1999)

 


Fig 1: CMAJ manuscripts received in January-April 1999.

Without analogous rates from other medical journals, it is difficult to interpret these results. From data published by BMJ2 we calculated that they made a decision on 75% of submitted manuscripts within 8 weeks. At CMAJ, we made a decision on 64% of submitted manuscripts ([36 + 65]/157) within 8 weeks. Such comparisons are not particularly meaningful, however, because the circumstances and policies that affect manuscript processing vary across journals. For instance, BMJ receives a larger volume of manuscripts than CMAJ but rejects a higher proportion without peer review (67% in July-December 1997).

The results of this baseline audit will become more meaningful as we continue to track and report our performance at CMAJ. In the interim we shall strive to reduce the interval between manuscript receipt and publication as one means of improving the impact of the journal and the research it publishes.



View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Symbol. No Caption available.

 
Footnotes

SYMBOL See related article page 977


References

  1. Joseph KS, Hoey J. Research letters in CMAJ [editorial]. CMAJ 1999;160(6):825.
  2. The editor. BMJ data. BMJ 1998;316:1519-20.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CMAJHome page
J. Hoey
When editors publish in their own journals
Can. Med. Assoc. J., November 1, 1999; 161(11): 1412 - 1413.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weir, E.
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weir, E.
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, K. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Peer review
Right arrow CMAJ editorial policy