Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals

Abstract

Objective: To identify characteristics of submitted manuscripts that are associated with acceptance for publication by major biomedical journals. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study of manuscripts reporting original research submitted to three major biomedical journals (BMJ and the Lancet [UK] and Annals of Internal Medicine [USA]) between January and April 2003 and between November 2003 and February 2004. Case reports on single patients were excluded. Main outcome measures: Publication outcome, methodological quality, predictors of publication. Results: Of 1107 manuscripts enrolled in the study, 68 (6%) were accepted, 777 (70%) were rejected outright, and 262 (24%) were rejected after peer review. Higher methodological quality scores were associated with an increased chance of acceptance (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 per 0.1 point increase in quality score; 95% CI, 1.16–1.67; P < 0.001), after controlling for study design and journal. In a multivariate logistic regression model, manuscripts were more likely to be published if they reported a randomised controlled trial (RCT) (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.21–4.80); used descriptive or qualitative analytical methods (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51–5.37); disclosed any funding source (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.01–3.60); or had a corresponding author living in the same country as that of the publishing journal (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14–3.46). There was a non‐significant trend towards manuscripts with larger sample size (≥ 73) being published (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94–4.32). After adjustment for other study characteristics, having statistically significant results did not improve the chance of a study being published (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.34–1.96). Conclusions: Submitted manuscripts are more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, RCT study design, descriptive or qualitative analytical methods and disclosure of any funding source, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal. Larger sample size may also increase the chance of acceptance for publication.

Role of Editorial and Peer Review Processes in Publication Bias: Analysis of Drug Trials Submitted to Eight Medical Journals

“…Trial registration resulted in an increased unadjusted OR for publication, which may reflect that included journals adhere to ICMJE policy requiring registration as a condition of consideration for publication. Multicentre trials and studies enrolling more than 100 participants were more likely to be published, which was in agreement with findings of previous studies [11], [12]…”

“…Olson et al assessed manuscripts submitted to JAMA, and found no difference in publication rates between manuscripts with positive versus negative results [11]. Lee et al found similar results for manuscripts submitted to BMJ, the Lancet and Annals of Internal Medicine [12]. Lynch et al and Okike et al assessed submissions to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and found no evidence for publication bias by editors [13], [14].…”

“…Moreover, publication bias may affect studies with various designs and interventions differently. Olson et al included manuscripts on controlled trials, while others enrolled manuscripts reporting original research, regardless of study design [12]–[14]. None of the studies that followed manuscripts submitted to journals included papers based on the intervention tested, while publication bias has predominantly been researched and described for drug trials [4], [6], [7], [16], [17]…”

Differences in citation rates by country of origin for papers published in top-ranked medical journals: do they reflect inequalities in access to publication?

“…There is some previous evidence of editorial bias 13 14. Lee et al 5 showed that corresponding authors living in the same country as that of the publishing journal were twice as likely as others to be accepted in BMJ , the Lancet and Annals of Internal Medicine , when controlling for a number of factors. Interestingly, they also found that this bias was almost entirely attributable to manuscripts that were rejected outright without peer review.…”

“…It is, for example, likely that an editor's and reviewer's personal knowledge of the setting from which the research and the researcher is coming may influence their judgement in both positive and negative directions. A previous study, for example, indicates that domestic authors tend to be accepted more frequently than their foreign colleagues 5. Eloquence and English language fluency may also improve the chances of the research being ranked more highly by reviewers and editors 6…”