Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Given the growing demand for peer reviews, many public health journals face increasing reluctance from scientists to act as reviewers. The decisions made by pre-screening editors about whether to desk reject a submitted manuscript or initiate peer review are therefore of the utmost importance. The lower the specificity of this decision, the higher the post-peer-review rejection rate, increasing the "rejection cascade" of repeated submissions and peer review cycles. We conducted a two-stage comparison to understand the agreement of pre-screen decisions among the three Co-Editors-in-Chief of the International Journal of Public Health (IJPH), an independent journal of the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+). METHODS: In total, the three Co-editors in chief made pre-screen decisions independently (stage 1) and then again after considering others' views (stage 2). RESULTS: Full Stage 1 agreement was observed for only 43% of the 30 manuscripts considered. Taking second opinions into account resulted in 67% agreement at stage 2. The main drivers of disagreement were the "soft" criteria that guide the pre-screen decisions, such as "novelty" and "originality". Stage 1 pre-screen rejection rates of 47%, 80% and 60% for the three editors increased to 57%, 83% and 67% respectively at stage 2. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, IJPH editors will add a "second opinion" for manuscripts they are considering for peer review.