Universidad de Guadalajara Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
Aldo Barajas-Ochoa1, Antonio Cisneros-Barrios2 and Cesar Ramos-Remus3, 1Rutgers New Jersey Medical School., Richmond, VA, 2Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico, 3Unidad de Investigacion en Enfermedades Cronico-Degenerativas, Guadalajara, Mexico
Background/Purpose: To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional, audit-type study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology-Springer Nature (CLRH) and rejected by one of the associate editors in 2019. We used a 36-item instrument to assess quality (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, STROBE), and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests.
Results: In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2. Between 40% and 80% of manuscripts were rated < 3 on crucial items, such as objectives, setting, study participants, and limitations. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance.
Conclusion: Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. Use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals.
Disclosures: A. Barajas-Ochoa, None; A. Cisneros-Barrios, None; C. Ramos-Remus, None.
