Perception of review quality by authors and editors may play a vital role in helping to keep the peer review process constructive. Comprehensive studies examining author and editor perceptions of reviews of manuscripts from different disciplines are rare. We assessed satisfaction of corresponding authors and opinions of editors with reviewer‐generated reports and reviewers' recommendations and checked whether there was association between authors' and editors' perceptions and recommendations in 12 Elsevier journals across four disciplines. We used a modified Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to measure review quality for 809 unique manuscripts from which we accessed 1,313 reviews and recommendations, 331 authors' perception of the review's helpfulness before editor's decision, and 541 editor's opinions regarding both review timeliness and impact on decision. Authors were most satisfied with reviews that recommended acceptance compared to revision or rejection. Reviews that recommended revisions had highest quality as reflected by the RQI. Authors highly rated their satisfaction with review constructiveness from natural sciences, and editors for the same subject also highly rated timeliness and reviews' influence on publication. Editors' opinion regarding the impact of review on their publication decision and RQI were associated. Our findings suggest that more constructive reviews may better guide the editorial decision‐making process.

中文翻译：

---

评论的质量是否反映在编辑和作者对同行评审的满意程度中？在四个研究领域的12种期刊中进行的横断面研究

作者和编辑对审阅质量的理解可能在帮助保持同行审阅过程具有建设性方面起着至关重要的作用。全面的研究很少研究作者和编辑对不同学科的手稿评论的看法。我们使用审稿人生成的报告和审稿人的建议评估了相应作者和编辑的意见的满意度，并检查了四门学科的12篇Elsevier期刊中，作者和编辑的看法和建议之间是否存在关联。我们使用改良的审阅质量工具（RQI）来衡量809篇独特手稿的审阅质量，从中我们获得了1,313篇审阅和建议，331名作者在编辑做出决定之前就认为该评论有所帮助，以及541篇编辑 关于审核及时性和对决策的影响的意见。作者对推荐接受而不是修订或拒绝的评论感到最满意。正如RQI所反映的那样，建议修订的评论质量最高。作者高度评价他们对自然科学的评论建设性的满意度，而同一主题的编辑也高度评价了及时性和评论对出版的影响。编辑们对审阅对其发表决定和RQI的影响的看法是相关的。我们的发现表明，更具建设性的评论可能会更好地指导编辑决策过程。正如RQI所反映的那样，建议修订的评论质量最高。作者高度评价他们对自然科学的评论建设性的满意度，而同一主题的编辑也高度评价了及时性和评论对出版的影响。编辑们对审阅对其发表决定和RQI的影响的看法是相关的。我们的发现表明，更具建设性的评论可能会更好地指导编辑决策过程。正如RQI所反映的那样，建议修订的评论质量最高。作者高度评价他们对自然科学的评论建设性的满意度，而同一主题的编辑也高度评价了及时性和评论对出版的影响。编辑们对审阅对其发表决定和RQI的影响的看法是相关的。我们的发现表明，更具建设性的评论可能会更好地指导编辑决策过程。