Advanced search
1 file | 208.28 KB
Author
Organization
Abstract
In 2011, Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) established a more restrictive selection process for manuscripts submitted to the journal, reducing the acceptance rate from 25% (2008-2009) to currently about 12-15%. To achieve this goal, we decided to score the priority of manuscripts submitted to NDT and to reject more papers at triage than in the past. This new scoring system allows a rapid decision for the authors without external review. However, the risk of such a restrictive policy may be that the journal might fail to capture important studies that are eventually published in higher-ranked journals. To look into this problem, we analysed random samples of papers (similar to 10%) rejected by NDT in 2012. Of the papers rejected at triage and those rejected after regular peer review, 59 and 61%, respectively, were accepted in other journals. A detailed analysis of these papers showed that only 4 out of 104 and 7 out of 93 of the triaged and rejected papers, respectively, were published in journals with an impact factor higher than that of NDT. Furthermore, for all these papers, independent assessors confirmed the evaluation made by the original reviewers. The number of citations of these papers was similar to that typically obtained by publications in the corresponding journals. Even though the analyses seem reassuring, previous observations made by leading journals warn that the risk of 'big misses', resulting from selective editorial policies, remains a real possibility. We will therefore continue to maintain a high degree of alertness and will periodically track the history of manuscripts rejected by NDT, particularly papers that are rejected at triage by our journal.
Keywords
publication, editorial policy, triage, desktop rejection

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 208.28 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Zoccali, Carmine, Daniela Amodeo, Ángel Argilés, Mustafa Arici, Graziella D’arrigo, Pieter Evenepoel, Danilo Fliser, et al. 2015. “The Fate of Triaged and Rejected Manuscripts.” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 30 (12): 1947–1950.
APA
Zoccali, C., Amodeo, D., Argilés, Á., Arici, M., D’arrigo, G., Evenepoel, P., Fliser, D., et al. (2015). The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 30(12), 1947–1950.
Vancouver
1.
Zoccali C, Amodeo D, Argilés Á, Arici M, D’arrigo G, Evenepoel P, et al. The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION. 2015;30(12):1947–50.
MLA
Zoccali, Carmine et al. “The Fate of Triaged and Rejected Manuscripts.” NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION 30.12 (2015): 1947–1950. Print.
@article{7094994,
  abstract     = {In 2011, Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) established a more restrictive selection process for manuscripts submitted to the journal, reducing the acceptance rate from 25\% (2008-2009) to currently about 12-15\%. To achieve this goal, we decided to score the priority of manuscripts submitted to NDT and to reject more papers at triage than in the past. This new scoring system allows a rapid decision for the authors without external review. However, the risk of such a restrictive policy may be that the journal might fail to capture important studies that are eventually published in higher-ranked journals. To look into this problem, we analysed random samples of papers (similar to 10\%) rejected by NDT in 2012. Of the papers rejected at triage and those rejected after regular peer review, 59 and 61\%, respectively, were accepted in other journals. A detailed analysis of these papers showed that only 4 out of 104 and 7 out of 93 of the triaged and rejected papers, respectively, were published in journals with an impact factor higher than that of NDT. Furthermore, for all these papers, independent assessors confirmed the evaluation made by the original reviewers. The number of citations of these papers was similar to that typically obtained by publications in the corresponding journals. Even though the analyses seem reassuring, previous observations made by leading journals warn that the risk of 'big misses', resulting from selective editorial policies, remains a real possibility. We will therefore continue to maintain a high degree of alertness and will periodically track the history of manuscripts rejected by NDT, particularly papers that are rejected at triage by our journal.},
  author       = {Zoccali, Carmine and Amodeo, Daniela and Argil{\'e}s, {\'A}ngel and Arici, Mustafa and D'arrigo, Graziella and Evenepoel, Pieter and Fliser, Danilo and Fox, Jonathan and Gesualdo, Loreto and Jadoul, Michel and Ketteler, Markus and Malyszko, Jolanta and Massy, Ziad and Mayer, Gert and Ortiz, Alberto and Sever, Mehmet and Vanholder, Raymond and Vinck, Carolina and Wanner, Christopher and Wi\k{e}cek, Andrzej},
  issn         = {0931-0509},
  journal      = {NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {12},
  pages        = {1947--1950},
  title        = {The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv387},
  volume       = {30},
  year         = {2015},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: