Editorial communication and peer review: an analysis from the authors' perspective

Abstract

Communication between authors, editors, and reviewers is essential in the editorial process. The objective of this article is to analyze the opinions of authors published in the journal Mediciego regarding communication during the publication process. A quantitative, exploratory study was conducted using a questionnaire (Google Forms), the link to which was sent to authors via the journal's platform and remained online for ten days. The sample, determined by convenience sampling, consisted of the available subjects: 59 Cuban and international authors who responded voluntarily and anonymously. The data were processed using the same tool. The availability of information for authors was acknowledged. The speed and flexibility of communication showed the highest percentage of dissatisfaction. The review and publication process did not adhere to the established deadlines (13.5%), although it contributed to acquiring new knowledge and improving the quality of the article; the evaluation was demanding and fair; 5.1% considered the reviewers' reasoning insufficient. 68% rated the communication as excellent. The respondents suggested: using other communication channels besides email (2), faster responses (2), more efficient peer review (2), interaction among authors (1), and fairer treatment of topics of public health interest (1). It was concluded that Mediciego's communication with its authors is predominantly satisfactory, although improvements are needed in communication speed and adherence to the stated deadlines.