Two Postal Surveys of Different Methods of Communicating Rejection to Authors Submitting to a General Medical Journal

The selection of research published can impact upon not only the composition of the scientific record but also its integrity. It is important that authors understand why their work has been rejected by a journal as this may influence the publication, and whether and where they submit in future. This article reports on a series of cross-sectional surveys of authors at a general medical journal whose papers were rejected without external peer review. Survey 1 evaluated differences in perceptions of the review system according to method of rejection. Survey 2 evaluated the usefulness of the ticksheet and authors' preferred method of receiving notification of rejection. Survey 1 (101 / 218 = 46% response rate) found no significant difference between the two groups in the level of satisfaction with the review process, time taken to respond to submission, likeliness to submit to the British Medical Journal ( BMJ ) in the future, and method of communicating rejection, but 62% reported the BMJ should continue to use the ticksheet. Survey 2 (63 / 185 = 34% response rate) found the ticksheet was the preferred method and that a majority receiving a ticksheet understood why their paper had been rejected, but many questioned the validity of comments and their usefulness for revising the submission.