BJP College Seminars Series
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
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 CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Howard, L.
Right arrow Articles by Wilkinson, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Howard, L.
Right arrow Articles by Wilkinson, G.

The British Journal of Psychiatry 173: 110-113 (1998)
© 1998 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Peer review and editorial decision-making

L Howard and G Wilkinson
Institute of Psychiatry, London.

INTRODUCTION: This paper describes and analyses the editor's decision- making process at the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), and investigates the association between reviewers' assessments and editorial decisions. METHOD: Four hundred consecutive manuscripts submitted over a six-month period to the BJP were examined prospectively for assessors' comments and editorial decisions on acceptance or rejection. Interrater reliability of assessments was calculated and a logistic regression analysis investigated the effect of the rank allocated by assessors and the comprehensiveness of the assessments on the editor's decision. RESULTS: The editor sent 248/400 (62%) manuscripts to assessors for peer review. Kappa for reliability of assessors rankings was 0.1 indicating poor interrater reliability. Assessors agreed best on whether to reject a paper. A ranking of five (indicating rejection) had the greatest association with editor's rejection (P < 0.001, odds ratio 0.079), and the mean ranking of assessments was also significantly associated with editorial acceptance or rejection (P = 0.004, odds ratio 0.24). CONCLUSION: Assessors and editors tend to agree on what is clearly not acceptable for publication but there is less agreement on what is suitable.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
C. HENDERSON, L. HOWARD, and G. WILKINSON
Acknowledgement of psychiatric research funding
The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2003; 183(4): 273 - 275.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
G. WILKINSON
Fare thee well - the Editor's last words
The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1, 2003; 182(6): 465 - 466.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals
Copyright © 1998 The Royal College of Psychiatrists.