The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making

Scientific journals are confronted with increasing numbers of submitted manuscripts. Because of page limitations, these journals have to revert to a high rejection rate. The standard form accompanying manuscripts submitted to Cardiovascular Research was changed in order to entice reviewers in an advisory behaviour more suited to the editorial rejection rate. All original manuscripts submitted to Cardiovascular Research during the previous four years were analyzed. The recommended rejection rate of individual reviewers was 23% and, with increasing experience, reviewers become more critical. The reviewer's recommendations and indication of scientific priority did not match the journal's rejection rate. An effort to lure the reviewers into a more critical advisory behaviour was effective. However, unanimity between reviewers is rare. The reviewer's recommendations do not justify high rejection rates and a wider dissemination of scientific information in the biomedical field is called for.