Authors' satisfaction with the peer-review process in the Revista Médica Electrónica

Abstract

Introduction: the editorial committee of Revista Médica Electrónica (RME) of the province of Matanzas, Cuba, is aware of the influence that manuscript evaluation has on the quality of its publications, and is interested in knowing the authors' perceptions of this process.

Objective: to evaluate the level of satisfaction of Revista Médica Electrónica authors with the peer-review process of their manuscripts.

Method: a qualitative study with quantitative features focused on authors' perceptions of the peer-review process. To this end, an online survey structured in two blocks was applied: the first to characterize the respondent and the second with five questions that allowed the Iadov technique to be applied to measure satisfaction.

Results: 53% of respondents were medical graduates, of whom 62.5% had published no more than three articles. Fifty percent of all authors had published more than three articles. By type, original articles were the most frequently published (90.0%). Although some authors published before 2000, the highest scientific output during the study period was found in the 2020-2023 period (73.3%). 43.3% of respondents expressed clear satisfaction with the peer-review process, obtaining a group satisfaction index of 0.63. Weaknesses and potentialities of the review process were identified, and suggestions for improvement were made.

Conclusions: there is general satisfaction with the manuscript evaluation, but the qualitative analysis reveals specific disagreements that require attention.