Who benefits from peer review?: An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Background: Little is known of what is done with the comments on submitted manuscripts provided by peer reviewers or to what extent these comments benefit the editor in deciding to accept or reject the manuscript, the author(s) in revising their manuscript, or the readership at large. Furthermore, nothing is known of any possible benefits of the process to the peer reviewer. Finally, the peer-review process may even be maleficent because of its implicit delay of publication and a possible bias against manuscripts originating from non-Anglo-American countries. Methods: The authors evaluated the benefits of the peer-review process to authors, editor, readers, and reviewers by a bibliometric analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review made by the editor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 1992 through 2003. The publication delay and potential geographical bias were evaluated as potential disadvantages. Results: The authors' reviewer advised acceptance of 56 percent of the manuscripts, and the editor mostly agreed with his advice. This suggests that the editor benefited from the review. The authors addressed 48 to 81 percent of the reviewer's constructive suggestions, and this suggests that they and the readers benefited also. Readers of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery may further benefit because manuscripts rejected by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery end up in less prestigious journals. The implicit delay of publication is limited, and the authors found no bias against non-Anglo-American submissions. The cost-effectiveness of the process for the peer reviewer remains unclear. Conclusions: The peer-review system of Plastic and Reconstructive 'Surgery, in general, is beneficial.