92% 49% 37% 37% 33% 24% 18% 11% 5% Making Academic Medicine’s First Cut: Analysis of Reasons for Rejec8on a9er Internal Editor Review Holly S Meyer1, Steven J Durning1, David P Sklar2, Lauren A Maggio1 1. Uniformed Services University 2. Arizona State University Objec8ve: To inform scholars of common reasons for internal peer review rejecNons. DescripNve content analysis of editors’ internal peer review comments for manuscripts (n = 369) rejected prior to external peer review from the journal Academic Medicine (AM). Text diﬃcult to follow / understand BACKGROUND rejected during the internal editor review process RESULTS ABSTRACT DISCUSSION The volume of submission received by Academic Medicine can cause a burden on external reviewers (green shirts). To reduce the burden, an internal editor review was insNtuted in 2012. While this review was completed by an associate editor, it was not clear what the main reasons for rejecNon at this ﬁrst review. METHODS To characterize the internal ﬁrst review, content analysis of the associate editors free-text comments from 369 manuscripts was completed. Internal Editor Review Inadequate or incomplete introducNon Issues with scienNﬁc conduct SubopNmal data collecNon process Weak discussion and/or conclusions Weak data analysis and/or presentaNon Publishing consideraNons IneﬀecNve study quesNon and/or design Unimportant topic to the journal’s mission ? 65% Author Contact: holly.meyer.ctr@usuhs.edu Authors’ TwiRer Handles: Holly Meyer @hollysmeyer and Lauren Maggio @laurenmaggio References: 1. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical educaNon reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–896. 2. Durning JS and Caroline J. Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AssociaNon of American Medical Colleges; 2015. hhps:// members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Review%20Criteria%20For%20Research%20Manuscripts.pdf. Accessed May 13, 2017. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this arNcle are those of the authors and do not necessarily reﬂect the oﬃcial policy of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. Acknowledgement: A special thanks to Eric G. Meyer for his help with the conveyer built visual. In addiNon to the use of constant comparison, the authors (LM & HM) employed Bordage’s “Top 20 Reasons Reviewers Recommend RejecNon”1 as sensiNzing concepts to structure the coding. TIP FOR AUTHORS VALUE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AUTHORS AND EDITORS Check out the AAMC’s Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts2. Find it here: hhps://Nnyurl.com/reviewcriteria Manuscripts must move the current literature forward; Research quesNon sets the stage for the study design; Study is informed by, and subsequently informs, the literature; TAKE HOME MESSAGES Results: Comments were analyzed for explicit ‘reasons for rejecNon’. Nine categories emerged. The top ﬁve are, [1] ineﬀecNve study quesNon and/or design (n=338, 92%), [2] subopNmal data collecNon process (n=180, 49%), [3] weak discussion (n=165, 45%), [4] unimportant or irrelevant topic (n=137, 37%), and [5] weak data analysis and/or presentaNon of results (120, 33%). Conclusions: Clear idenNﬁcaNon of a research quesNon, a strong methodology, and a topic aligned with the journal’s mission are key to avoiding a ‘desk’ rejecNon. Enhanced communicaNon improves the quality of manuscript submissions; Clarify the ambiguity surrounding editor rejecNons; Eases the burden on peer reviewers. Increase the likelihood of moving to external peer review; This study is being published in Academic Medicine. Use the QR code for access to the arNcle