Publishing research can be time consuming, as papers are often submitted and reviewed by multiple journals before final acceptance. We hypothesized that attaching previous peer-review reports to the next submission of the paper to a different journal (possibly with point-to-point responses and amendments) could decrease the workload for both reviewers and editors and could shorten the time from final draft to actual publication. We therefore performed an online survey to assess the views of the editors-in-chief of all 100 general medical journals from the citation impact factor report category "internal & general medicine" (ISI Web of Knowledge). Of contacted editors, 61% responded. One of 4 journals do currently receive peer-review reports on occasion. Editors recognized potential advantages but also concerns on using previous peer-review reports across 3 themes: scientific community, quality of papers, and the publication process. The use of previous peer-review reports has the potential to facilitate authors, reviewers, and editors in optimizing peer review in general medical science.
- peer review