Reported use of reporting guidelines among JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute authors, editorial outcomes, and reviewer ratings related to adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation.

Background: Associations were examined between author-reported uses of reporting guidelines to prepare JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute ( JNCI ) submissions, editorial decisions, and reviewer ratings for adherence to reporting guidelines and clarity of presentation.

Methods: At submission, authors were asked if they used reporting guidelines to prepare their manuscript and, if so, which one(s). Reviewers rated adherence to reporting guidelines and clarity of presentation. Data were gathered using a customized Editorial Manager Enterprise Analytics Report for submissions with first or final decisions that were submitted between November 1, 2015, and April 30, 2017. Manuscript types that would benefit from the use of reporting guidelines were included. All reviews were included in the analyses. Numerical values were given to each answer (yes, 1; no, 0) or reviewer rating (not applicable, 0; fair, 1; poor, 2; good, 3; very good, 4; and outstanding, 5), and scores were compared using two-sided t tests.

Results: Of 2209 submissions included in the analysis, 1144 (51.8%) indicated that at least one reporting guideline was used. The STROBE guidelines were the most common ( n  = 531, 24.0%). Of the 2068 (93.6%) submissions that were rejected, 1105 (50.1%) indicated using reporting guidelines and 963 (43.6%) did not (mean [SD] scores of rejected vs not rejected, 0.53 [0.50] vs 0.49 [0.50], P  = .47). Of the 1033 ratings for adherence to reporting guidelines, mean (SD) scores for not rejected vs rejected submissions were 3.2 (1.61) vs 2.9 (1.57) ( P  = .005), and mean (SD) scores for reporting guidelines use vs no use were 3.1 (1.48) vs 2.9 (1.70) ( P  = .01). Of the 1036 ratings for clarity of presentation, mean (SD) scores for not rejected vs rejected submissions were 3.6 (1.00) vs 3.1 (1.08) ( P  < .001), whereas mean (SD) scores for reporting guidelines use vs no use were 3.3 (1.04) vs 3.3 (1.10) ( P  = .64).

Conclusions: Among these JNCI submissions, reporting the use of reporting guidelines was not associated with editorial decisions or with reviewer ratings for clarity of presentation. Reviewer ratings for adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation were associated with editorial decisions after peer review, and ratings for adherence to guidelines were associated with reported use of reporting guidelines.