A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum

Abstract

An analysis of 134 reviews of manuscripts submitted to the North American Editorial Office of Physiologia Plantarum in 1993 compared personal/professional characteristics of the reviewers and the specificity of the interest and experience of the reviewers, relative to the reviewed paper, to the depth and tone of the reviews, the presence of constructive suggestions, and the recommendations for or against publication. There was no significant difference between the reviews from the reviewers of different ranks or degrees of seniority, of different employment sectors, of different degrees of interest and experience in the subject of the paper, or of other subgroups, except that reviewers whose interest and experience were very specific to the topic of the paper tended to give more constructive suggestions, and assistant professors tended to be less accepting of papers than editors more frequently than did reviewers in general. Recommendations regarding a manuscript were more similar than could be accounted for by chance, providing a positive indication of the reliability of the review‐system. Editors in their decisions tended to follow the recommendations of reviewers, but when reviewers took an extreme tone, either positive or negative, the editors tended to provide a balancing function. The data provide support for the reliability and lack of bias in a commonly used peer‐review system.