Table Of ContentVolume 8, Issue 1, 2014
[SPECIAL FEATURE]
C A P
ONTENT NALYSIS OF APERS
S C
UBMITTED TO OMMUNICATIONS IN
I L , 2007-2013
NFORMATION ITERACY
Christopher V. Hollister
University at Buffalo
ABSTRACT
The author conducted a content analysis of papers submitted to the journal, Communications in
Information Literacy, from the years 2007-2013. The purpose was to investigate and report on
the overall quality characteristics of a statistically significant sample of papers submitted to a
single-topic, open access, library and information science (LIS) journal. Characteristics of man-
uscript submissions, authorship, reviewer evaluations, and editorial decisions were illuminated
to provide context; particular emphasis was given to the analysis of major criticisms found in
reviewer evaluations of rejected papers. Overall results were compared to previously published
research. The findings suggest a trend in favor of collaborative authorship, and a possible trend
toward a more practice-based literature. The findings also suggest a possible deterioration in
some of the skills that are required of LIS authors relative to the preparation of scholarly papers.
The author discusses potential implications for authors and the disciplinary literature, recom-
mends directions for future research, and where possible, provides recommendations for the
benefit of the greater community of LIS scholars.
50
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
INTRODUCTION of their research and writing, but despite the
fact that those works occasionally appear in
In a somewhat dated study concerning the peer-reviewed journals, they are primarily
quality and value of the professional journal anecdotal or editorial in nature: that is, they
literature, Hernon and Metoyer-Duran are not research-based. For these reasons,
(1992) asserted the following: “If library the author of this paper devised a study in
and information science is to advance as a which the quality characteristics of actual
scholarly field, and further justify the LIS manuscript submissions could be
position of its programs within college and illuminated. And for the purpose of this
university graduate schools, the quality of paper, the term “quality characteristic” is
the research, theoretical, and scholarly defined as a characteristic—in this instance,
literature of the field must increase” (p. with scholarly papers—that can be
501). Since the time of that assertion, the identified and evaluated for the purpose of
professional literature has evolved judging the overall quality and value
relative to the greater body of professional
considerably; it has been expanded to
accommodate new areas of research and literature. The objective of the study was to
practice, and it has been adapted to the investigate and report on the overall quality
wider possibilities of electronic publishing and value of a statistically significant
with a characteristically unique embrace of sample of LIS manuscripts in the context of
open access. Given these changes, and the contemporary subject matter in a single-
current environment in which library topic, open access journal. The author’s
practitioners and educators are increasingly main research questions included the
pressured to demonstrate their value in more following:
tangible ways, it would seem that Hernon
and Metoyer-Duran’s contention relative to What are the characteristics of
the literature is truer and even more authorship and manuscript
poignant today. submissions in the context of
contemporary LIS subject matter in
Published research on the actual quality and a single-topic, open access journal?
value of LIS journal literature is sparse. The What are the strengths and
studies devoted to this topic are variously weaknesses of contemporary LIS
noteworthy to the extent that they manuscript submissions?
demonstrate a thread of relative inquiry, How do the quality characteristics
they provide some useful research methods, of contemporary LIS manuscripts
they include modestly representative compare to those that were
samples, and they yield some potentially evaluated in previous studies?
generalizable findings. However, these Do the quality characteristics of
studies are also dated; none of them address contemporary LIS manuscripts, as
the state of LIS journal literature as it identified in studies like this,
pertains to recent disciplinary discourse, nor suggest areas in which LIS authors,
do they address the literature in the in general, might improve upon
emergent context of an open access their scholarly writing?
publishing environment. It should be
recognized that the current literature does As co-founder and co-editor of the open
include numerous discussions of how access journal, Communications in
authors might improve the quality and value Information Literacy (CIL), the author of
51
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
this paper was uniquely positioned to design Earlier research-based analyses of the
and conduct a study on the quality quality and value of the literature were
characteristics of LIS manuscript largely concentrated on the use, authority,
submissions. The author conducted a and relative depth of cited works in
content analysis of reviewer evaluations for scholarly LIS papers. Pierce (1987), for
manuscripts submitted to CIL from the instance, argued that the inconsistent use of
years 2007 through 2013 (volumes 1-7). cited works in published LIS papers was
The study was modeled loosely after one evidence of a weakness in the literature. As
that was conducted by Hernon, Smith, and he asserted, “The difference in age and
Croxen (1993), but with numerous format of materials cited and the lack of
modifications. Particular emphasis was agreement on what items merit citing are
given to collecting data from the reviewer indicative of a lack of consensus on the
evaluations of papers that were ultimately value of individual research efforts in the
rejected; the author examined and collated professions that lessens the value of
the primary deficiencies of those papers, as research generally. The failure of a literature
identified by the reviewers. This was done to develop scientific knowledge structures
solely for the purpose of identifying suggests a failure of knowledge to cumulate
particular areas of weakness that LIS and build” (p. 165). In a subsequent study of
authors might improve upon. As with citation use as it pertains to the quality of
previously published works, the author of LIS literature, Budd (1991) found a similar
the present study investigated related issues dispersion of research anchors and an
of reviewer turnaround times, rates of overreliance on research internal to the
reviewer agreement, and whether or not discipline. Shortly thereafter, Hernon and
rejected papers were published elsewhere. Metoyer-Duran (1992) showed evidence
The author also collected relevant that “…academic librarians rely on source
characteristics of manuscript authorship in material that is convenient and easily
order to provide readers with a contextual understood” (p. 510), thus imparting greater
understanding of the study sample, and responsibility on manuscript reviewers as
perhaps the results. Finally, the author gatekeepers, and increasing the instances in
weighed the overall findings, proposed which papers lacking in-depth research are
possible implications, recommended future published in journals with less rigorous
directions for related research, and provided standards.
some contextual recommendations.
Investigating quality characteristics from a
LITERATURE REVIEW different perspective, Metoyer-Duran (1993)
assessed the readability of papers submitted
As noted, published research on the actual to the journal, College & Research
quality and value of LIS journal literature is Libraries, from 1990-1991. The author
sparse and dated. Although the relative identified an emerging pattern in which
newness of the discipline commonly “readability might be linked to ‘browse-
requires its scholars make use of research ability’” (p. 521), and in her conclusions,
conducted in other fields—particularly with she suggested that the downward trajectory
respect to theory and methodology—the of reading levels in general and the
nature of the subject matter of this paper increased demands on librarians’
required the author to remain within the LIS professional lives might conspire to have a
framework. negative impact on the overall
52
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
sophistication of LIS manuscript specialized, or limited appeal), and prior
submissions, and by extension, the publication elsewhere—were cited to lesser,
professional literature. Apropos of the but still noteworthy degrees.
present study, Metoyer-Duran also proposed
the following as questions that merited For the purpose of this paper, the most
future investigation: “What is the readability relevant previous research was conducted
of electronic journals?” and “Is there a by Hernon, Smith, and Croxen (1993). In
difference in readability between electronic their study, the authors analyzed the
and nonelectronic journals?” (p. 521). This characteristics of authorship, editorial
is particularly important, given Xia’s more decisions, and reviewer evaluations for
recent study concerning the overall quality manuscript submissions to the journal,
of LIS journals; as the author found, “…OA College & Research Libraries, from 1980-
[open access] journals have gained 1991. Emphasis was given to examining the
momentum supporting high-quality research quality characteristics of rejected
and publication, and some OA journals have manuscripts by identifying and enumerating
been ranked as high as the best traditional the major criticisms in reviewer evaluations.
print journals” (2012, p. 134). The authors created a detailed set of 18
categories for which criticisms could be
Landwirth (1991) conducted a small-scale, coded, and furthermore, they identified what
internal examination of reviewer evaluations they deemed to be primary and secondary
for manuscripts submitted to the journal, criticisms for each rejected paper.
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Reflecting the results from Landwirth’s
from 1988-1990. Her particular interest, in study (1991), the authors established that
terms of quality characteristics, was in the the lack of new or noteworthy information
question, “What causes rejection of a was the most common criticism to be found
manuscript for publication?” (p. 337). in reviewer evaluations. Unlike Landwirth’s
Preparing to answer that question, the findings, however, the second to most
author noted that, “It is difficult to translate common criticism was that manuscripts
narrative referee comments into firm were out of scope for the journal. To lesser,
categories, but imprecise observations are but still noteworthy degrees, issues related
possible” (p. 337). As a result, Landwirth to poorly developed ideas, poor quality of
identified what she deemed to be the major presentation, and scientific invalidity were
criticisms in reviewer evaluations for also cited as major criticisms.
rejected papers, and she found that they fit
into six, mostly general categories. The two It is noteworthy that Aluri (1996) issued a
most cited criticisms were equally harshly critical response to the Hernon,
represented: lack of new or noteworthy Smith, and Croxen (1993) study, suggesting
information (i.e., unoriginal or that the authors’ own work suffered from of
commonplace) and poorly developed ideas many of the same flaws that they had
(i.e., premature, lacking focus, or identified as major criticism in other LIS
superficial). The poor quality of manuscript evaluations. Specifically, Aluri
presentation (i.e., substandard writing) was asserted that the researchers included
another highly cited manuscript criticism. insufficiently noteworthy information in
The remaining categories of criticisms— their study, that some of their data was
scientific invalidity (i.e., design or inconsistent, that they failed to effectively
conclusions), out of scope (i.e., trivial, too argue their case, and that they exhibited
53
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
instances of substandard writing (p. 417- context of electronic or open access
418). Furthermore, Aluri accused the publishing, is examined in the present study.
researchers of professional condescension, Finally, Fisher (1999) admits that assessing
and of ethical violations concerning author the actual quality of LIS papers is somewhat
and reviewer confidentiality (p. 422). “problematic” (p. 79), citing the myriad
Although some of Aluri’s criticisms are differences in writing, reading, and
valid, it should be noted that his work is not reviewing styles. Still, as shown in the
research-based; it is a response paper. published research of numerous disciplines,
Furthermore, most of the correctly identified there are standards by which quality
flaws in the Hernon, Smith, and Croxen characteristics of a professional literature
work are not applicable to the present study. can be illuminated for the ultimate purpose
Still, the potential for any perceived levels of improved scholarship. Although the LIS
of condescension or for any perceived research in this area is dated, it provides a
ethical violations are matters of concern; useful foundation from which to explore
those issues are fully addressed in the questions about the current state of the
methods and limitations sections of this literature. And given the pressing need for
paper. LIS practitioners and educators to
demonstrate their professional value in ways
Weller (2001) created a table representation that institutional authorities and other
in which the reasons for LIS manuscript decision-makers from outside the discipline
rejection (Landwirth, 1991; Hernon, Smith, can understand and appreciate, assessing the
and Croxen, 1993) were shown and quality characteristics of the literature for
juxtaposed with the results from similar the purpose of overall improvement is a
studies in other disciplines. To the extent critical function.
that Weller created the table and its broadly
defined categories of manuscript criticisms, METHOD
readers can compare and contrast the results
from LIS studies with those in other As noted, the objective of the present study
disciplines, and then make some general was to investigate the quality characteristics
observations. However, there is little of contemporary LIS manuscript
commonality in the representative data, and submissions in the context of a single-topic,
therefore, the only generalizable statement open access journal; by virtue of his
that can be made is that the major criticisms position as co-editor for the journal,
of scholarly manuscript submissions appear Communications in Information Literacy
to differ from discipline to discipline, and to (CIL), the author was strategically situated
a modest degree, from study to study. to conduct such an investigation. As a
Furthermore, given the methods used to matter of baseline information, CIL is a peer
collect the data from all of the studies -reviewed, open access journal, which
included in Weller’s table, and also given commenced publication in 2007; since that
the imprecise nature of peer review, it is time, it has been the only journal published
likely that major criticisms of manuscript in North America that is devoted entirely
submissions will differ to some extent from the subject matter of information literacy in
journal to journal, and from reviewer to higher education.1
reviewer. Whether or not the general nature
or any specific elements of manuscript The present study was modeled loosely after
criticisms have changed over time, or in the one conducted by Hernon, Smith, and
54
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
Croxen (1993), in which the authors stored in the journal’s online archive. For
analyzed the characteristics of authorship, the purpose of the present study, this
manuscript submission, editorial decisions, provided a consistent, reliable, and stable
and reviewer evaluations for manuscript source of data.
submissions to the journal, College &
Research Libraries. Although the Content Analysis of Reviewer
characteristics of authorship and editorial Evaluations of Rejected Papers
decisions were examined in the present
There were 256 reviewer evaluations
study to provide readers with a contextual
associated with the 104 rejected papers in
understanding of the study sample, greater
this sample. The author conducted a content
focus was devoted to the analysis of
analysis of those evaluations to identify the
reviewer evaluations. Particular emphasis
top three (i.e., the most highly emphasized)
was given to examining the quality
major criticisms for each paper; those
characteristics of rejected manuscripts by
criticisms were coded and then entered into
identifying and enumerating the major
spreadsheets for quantitative analysis. In
criticisms found in reviewer evaluations. It
total, the author identified 14 categories of
was the author’s supposition that a focused
major criticisms; these categories were
examination of major criticisms in rejected
created primarily to reflect the manuscript
papers would be a fitting approach in terms
evaluation instructions in the Reviewer
of addressing the aforementioned research
Guidelines for Communications in
questions, and ultimately, providing a useful
Information Literacy (Goosney & Hollister,
report to the greater community of LIS 2009).3 To whatever extent possible, the
readers and scholars.
categories of major criticisms were also
aligned with those devised for the Hernon,
Study Sample
Smith, and Croxen (1993) study, but with
Communications in Information Literacy necessary modifications for the purpose of
operates on the Open Journal Systems (OJS) having clearer operational definitions.
platform2—an open source software
program designed to facilitate a more It should be noted that the approach to
automated workflow in the management of identifying major criticisms in the
academic journals. The principal feature that evaluations of rejected papers differs
distinguishes OJS from other general significantly between this study and that
content management systems is the conducted by Hernon, Smith, and Croxen.
integrated function of peer review; all of the Whereas the authors of the previous work
related workflow processes are managed on appear to have used the editors’ decision
the OJS platform. Papers are submitted letters to identify major criticisms, the
electronically, intercepted by editors, author of the present investigation collected
blinded, and assigned to reviewers, and that information directly from reviewer
reviewers submit their evaluations to the evaluations; he likened this to the difference
editors, who then issue editorial decisions: between reporting on secondary or primary
This all takes place by way of the OJS source materials. Given his experience as co
platform. The complete records for all -editor for CIL, the author understood that
papers, whether they are ultimately accepted reasons for rejection provided in decision
or rejected, including all correspondences, letters are sometimes filtered for various
manuscript event logs, reviewers’ purposes—mainly to spare authors from
evaluations, and editorial decisions, are particularly harsh or unwarranted criticisms.
55
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
Furthermore, the authors of the previous author of the present study is also a co-
study sought to identify what they deemed editor for the journal from which relative
to be the two major criticisms of rejected data was harvested and analyzed. This may
papers—the primary and the secondary. generate questions of subjectivity, intent,
Although the single primary and the single and the potential for breaching author and
secondary reasons for manuscript rejection reviewer confidentiality. To begin, great
are sometimes evident in the content consideration was given to the potential for
analyses of reviewer evaluations, that is not ethical violations in this work, and great
the norm. For this reason, and also for the care was taken to avoid any and all breaches
purpose of providing a deeper of author or reviewer confidentiality.
understanding of manuscript rejection, the Information presented here is stripped of
author of the present study sought to any identifiable features; none of it can be
identify the top three major criticisms in directly or indirectly attributed to any
reviewer evaluations, but without any individuals. As an added measure of
speculative rankings of their intended order. diligence, the author even resisted the
The process of identifying the top three somewhat customary practice of illustrating
major criticisms in each evaluation was study results by including blinded, though
standardized to the extent that reviewers potentially useful quotations from study
followed CIL’s guidelines document for subjects.
reviewing content, determining quality and
significance, and writing reports. Given this As noted by Aluri (1996), the issue of
structure, and the general tendency of CIL sharing a journal’s internal files with
reviewers to emphasize in a recognizable external researchers for the purpose of
way those elements that they perceive to be achieving greater objectivity—as done by
the particular strengths and weaknesses of Hernon, Smith, and Croxen (1993)—is
manuscript submissions, it was not a another ethical concern. There is an implied
significant challenge for the author to understanding in scholarly publishing that
identify major criticisms. In some instances, when one submits a manuscript to a journal
there were less than three major criticisms for review, the correspondence between
identified, and in others, there were more editor and author is confidential. The editors
than three. In instances of the latter, the of CIL abide by this unwritten rule, and they
author selected and coded those manuscript are steadfastly opposed to sharing internal
flaws that had elicited the most emphatic correspondence with external parties for any
and/or verbose reviewer responses. And purposes. Still, the editors do recognize the
finally, in the few instances when reviewers potential value of the present study to the
simply provided numeric or bulleted lists of greater community of LIS scholars.
criticisms, but without any evident rankings, Notwithstanding the potential limitations of
the author assumed an order of importance, editorial and researcher subjectivity, the
and he selected and coded the first three present study was deemed to be of sufficient
manuscript criticisms atop each of those importance to the journal, the literature, and
lists. the discipline, and it was therefore
conducted internally.
LIMITATIONS AND OTHER
The professional literature is replete with
POTENTIAL CONCERNS
both research and commentary on the
relative strengths and weaknesses of peer
There is no concealing the fact that the
56
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
review, and given that some data for this appearances of overt journal promotion. To
study was collected from reviewer this point, it is disingenuous to deny that the
evaluations, there is an opening for editors are naturally inclined to desire high-
questions of reliability. In effect, these are quality manuscript submissions. If the
mainly questions of reviewer expertise, results of this study help prospective authors
integrity, and professionalism. During the to improve upon the works that they submit
years covered in this study, the Editorial to CIL, then it will be an added benefit.
Board for CIL included an ACRL President, However, the principal intent of this paper is
five ACRL Instruction Section chairpersons, to address the aforementioned research
and various architects of the original [and questions by investigating and reporting on
the forthcoming revised] ACRL Information the quality characteristics of contemporary
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher LIS manuscript submissions, and to do so in
Education (2004). While the author the context of a single-topic, open access
acknowledges the imperfections of peer journal.
review, he puts forth the professional
expertise that is implied by the RESULTS
aforementioned credentials, and also the
CIL reviewers’ standardized use of the
Submissions
Reviewer Guidelines for Communications in
Between the years of 2007-2013,
Information Literacy (Goosney & Hollister,
prospective authors submitted a total of 224
2009) as his arguments against blanket
manuscripts to the journal, CIL, and of
questions of data reliability.
those, 173 underwent the formal peer
review process. The remaining 51 non-
In Aluri’s (1996) criticism of the Hernon,
reviewed papers included editorials,
Smith, and Croxen (1993) study, he referred
perspectives pieces, book and conference
to the condescending nature and
reviews, and invited works for theme issues.
“inadvertent negativism” of editorial advice,
From the pool of peer-evaluated papers, 64
and also the potential for discouraging
were ultimately accepted for publication,
prospective authors (p. 416). Although the
104 were rejected, and 5 were still under
author of the present study acknowledges
review at the time of this study (see Table
that scholars can perceive reviewer
1). Factoring out the undecided manuscripts,
evaluations and editorial advice in personal
these numbers translated into an overall
or negative terms, he asserts that the
acceptance rate of 37% for the journal’s
professional role of journal reviewers and
reviewed papers during its first seven years
editors is to “…use their knowledge and
of publication.
experience in particular areas of research or
practice to evaluate manuscript submissions
As shown in Table 2, 78% percent of the
as potential contributions to the journals for
reviewed manuscripts included in this study
which they serve, and by extensions, for the
were either research papers (n=68) or case
greater body of LIS literature” (Hollister,
studies (n=67); the remaining 22% were
2013, p. 163). As a result, it is necessary for
review papers (n=28) and theoretical works
editorial advice to be honest and forthright,
(n=10).4 Overall, research papers and case
and for prospective authors to view such
studies accounted for 91% (n=58) of all
advice in a professional manner.
accepted papers and 71% (n=74) of those
that were rejected; review papers and
Finally, the author wished to avoid any
theoretical works accounted for 9% (n=6) of
57
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
TABLE 1—MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO CIL, 2007-2013
Year Total Non- Reviewed Accepted Rejected Undecided
Submissions Reviewed
2007 29 5 24 13 11 0
2008 28 5 23 7 16 0
2009* 35 13 22 11 11 0
2010 32 3 29 9 20 0
2011 23 4 19 10 9 0
2012 40 5 35 9 26 0
2013* 37 16 21 5 11 5
Total 224 51 173 64 104 5
* Years during which CIL published theme issues that included a high percentage of invited, non-reviewed papers.
accepted papers and 29% (n=30) of rejected institutions; the remaining 3% of
ones. Factoring out the undecided contributing authors were from professional
submissions, 47% of case studies, 41% of organizations (n=7); undetermined
research papers, 40% of theoretical works, institutions (n=5), or for-profit institutions
and 14% of review papers were ultimately of higher education (n=1).
accepted for publication.
Ninety-four percent (n=346) of the
Overall there were 370 authors associated contributing authors self-identified as being
with the 224 manuscripts analyzed in this affiliated with four-year colleges or
study; among those contributors, 49 either universities. The remaining 6% of the
wrote or co-wrote more than one of the author sample represented professional
submitted papers. Seventy-three percent associations (n=7), community and junior
(n=269) of the authors self-identified as colleges (n=6), undetermined institutions
being affiliated with public institutions of (n=5), vocational and training schools
higher education, and 24% (n=88) self- (n=4), online universities (n=1), and public
identified as being affiliated with private library systems (n=1). Among the
TABLE 2—REVIEWED CIL MANUSCRIPTS, 2007-2013, BY TYPE
Manuscript Type Number Accepted Rejected Undecided
Research 68 27 39 2
Case study 67 31 35 1
Literature review 28 3 24 1
Theoretical 10 3 6 1
Total 173 64 104 5
58
Hollister, Content Analysis of Papers Submitted to CIL Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014
representated, author-affiliated four-year peer review, though papers from only seven
colleges and universities, and not countries were ultimately accepted for
accounting for institutions with multiple publication: United States (n=55), Canada
contributing authors, 86% (n=297) were (n=3), United Kingdom (n=2), and one each
identified by virtue of their web sites as from Australia, India, Ireland, and Norway.
being universities, 7% (n=24) were liberal
arts colleges, 7% (n=23) were special focus Authorship of Reviewed Papers
institutions, and 3% (n=12) were Overall there were 303 authors associated
exclusively arts or sciences colleges.5 with the 173 peer-evaluated manuscripts
Among the represented universities, 33% that were analyzed in this study; among
(n=98) were Association of Research those contributors, 25 either wrote or co-
Libraries (ARL) member institutions. And wrote more than one of the submitted
among the special focus institutions, 19 papers. As shown in Table 3, 50% (n=87) of
were religiously-affiliated, two were single- the reviewed papers had one author, 33% of
gender, one was military, and one was the papers had two authors, 12% had three,
online-only (n=1). and 5% had four or more.
Authors affiliated with institutions in 19 The self-identified professional status of
countries submitted manuscripts to CIL contributing authors in this pool was as
from 2007-2013. In terms of submission follows: 72% (n=218) library practitioners;
numbers, the represented countries were the 17% (n=51) non-LIS educators; 8% (n=25)
United States (n=171), India (n=16), Canada LIS educators; 2% (n=5) professional
(n=10), Nigeria (6), Cyprus (n=5), United organization representatives; and 1% (n=4)
Kingdom (n=3), and one each from students. As shown in Table 4, 65% percent
Australia, Colombia, Denmark, Hungary, (n=112) of the papers were exclusively
Iran, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi authored by one or more library
Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and practitioners, 11% (n=19) by non-LIS
Trinidad and Tobago. Manuscripts educators, 4% (n=7) by LIS educators, 2%
submitted by authors from all of the (n=4) by students, and 1% (n=2) by
aforementioned countries were included in professional organization representatives.
the overall pool of those that underwent Seventeen percent (n=29) of the papers in
TABLE 3—NUMBER OF AUTHORS PER PEER-REVIEWED MANUSCRIPT
Number of Reviewed Accepted Rejected Acceptance
Authors Submissions Rate*
One 87 20 67 23%
Two 57 25 32 44%
Three 20 11 9 55%
Four or more 9 8 1 89%
Total 173 64 104 --
* Five undecided manuscripts were factored out in the calculation of acceptance rates.
59
