Reviewers’ views on the editorial review processes of the Canadian Medical Education Journal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77193Abstract
Background: Peer review is an integral part of the scientific process, ongoing efforts are needed to improve this process for both the reviewer and the scientific journal conducting peer review. This work describes the Canadian Medical Education Journal (CMEJ) peer reviewers’ experiences in accepting or declining invitations to review.
Methods: We deployed questionnaires between December 2020 and May 2022. We calculated descriptive statistics for each response group (accepted or declined invitations). We analyzed open-ended comments using conventional content analysis.
Results: CMEJ Reviewers described their experiences within three broad categories of factors: individual, contextual, and journal. Participants strongly agreed or agreed to review an article (n = 95) because the article was: within their area of expertise (84/95 = 88.4%); within a topic of interest (n = 83, 87.4%); an appropriate length (n = 79, 83.2%); relevant to their work and/or interests (n = 77, 81.1%); of sufficient quality (n = 75, 78.9%); educational (n = 72, 75.8%); and provided the opportunity to remain up-to-date on current research (n = 69, 72.6%). Participants’ (n = 17) most cited reason for declining their invitation to review for CMEJ was competing workloads (n = 14, 82.4%). Reviewers appreciated reviewer instructions, knowing the article’s outcome, and seeing what other reviewers had to say.
Conclusion: This work describes the enablers and barriers of CMEJ reviewers and highlights the need to acknowledge peer reviewers' work, while challenging institutions and journals to support peer review activities.
References
1. Snell L, Spencer J. Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Med Ed. 2005;39(1):90–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x
2. Black N, Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280(3):231–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.231
3. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA. 1990;263(10):1338–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100042005
4. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer Psychol. 2000;55(1):68. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68
5. D’Eon M. Peer review: My article was rejected by the journal I edit. Can Med Ed J. 2020;11(4):e1. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.70700
6. O’Brien JM, Thoma B. Reused Reviews: the CMEJ announces a new policy to recycle peer reviews. Can Med Ed J. 2021;12(2):e9. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.72364
7. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 2007 Jan 1;61(1):9–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817
8. Gibson M, Spong CY, Simonsen SE, Martin S, Scott JR. Author perception of peer review. Obstetr Gyn.2008;112(3):646–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31818425d4
9. Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K. Dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. 2022. https://doi.org/10.32614/cran.package.dplyr
10. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3
11. Grolemund G, Wickham H. Dates and times made easy with lubridate. J Stat Software. 2011;40(3):1–25. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i03
12. Wickham H, Bryan J. readxl: read Excel files. 2022. https://doi.org/10.32614/cran.package.readxl
13. Wickham H. Stringr: simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. 2022. https://doi.org/10.32614/cran.package.stringr
14. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Software. 2019;4(43):1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
15. Wickham H, Girlich M. Tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. 2022. https://doi.org/10.32614/cran.package.tidyr
16. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
17. Raniga SB. Decline to review a manuscript: insight and implications for AJR reviewers, authors, and editorial staff. Amer J Roentgenol. 1976. 2020;214(4):723–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.19.22000
18. Willis M. Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned publishing. 2016;29(1):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1006
19. Publons. Publons’ global state of peer review 2018 . 0 ed. London, UK: Publons; 2018 Sep. https://doi.org/10.14322/publons.gspr2018
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Larisa Lotoski, Jennifer O’Brien, Marcel F D’Eon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
