Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities
Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-13-74
复制
发表时间：
2013-06-07
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Pan, Fang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ho, Roger Chun-Man;Mak, Kwok-Kei;Pan, Fang
背景：同行评议是生物医学期刊决定是否发表文章的主要方法。这项横断面调查评估了全球学术界对生物医学期刊审查制度的看法。方法：2010年3月至2010年8月，通过电子邮件联系2009年泰晤士高等教育Quacquarelli Symonds （the - qs）世界大学排名中排名靠前的大学的28009名生物医学学者。1340人完成了一项在线调查，主要针对他们的学术背景、负面经历和对生物医学期刊同行评议的看法，并在基础科学家、临床医生和临床科学家之间进行了比较。结果：不到一半的受访者认为生物医学期刊的同行评议制度是公平的（48.4%）、科学的（47.5%）和透明的（25.1%）。然而，58.2%的受访者认为作者应该保持匿名，64.4%的受访者认为审稿人不应该被披露。大多数人（67.7%）同意建立申诉制度。认为“同行评议制度公平”的英语母语受访者比例显著高于非英语母语受访者（p = 0.02）。同样，认为“同行评议制度是公平的”的临床医生比例明显高于基础科学家和临床科学家（p = 0.004）。对于女性（beta = -0.1, p = 0.03），审稿人评论中遭遇人身攻击的频率（beta = -0.1, p = 0.002）和审稿人强加不必要参考文献的频率（beta = -0.06, p = 0.04）与认同“同行评议制度是公平的”呈独立负相关。结论：学术界在生物医学期刊同行评议制度是否公平、科学和透明的问题上存在分歧。大多数学者同意双盲同行评审，并同意建立申诉制度。女性学者、被审稿人人身攻击的经历和强加不必要的参考文献与对生物医学期刊同行评议制度公平性的分歧有关。
Background: Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally.Methods: A total of 28,009 biomedical academics from high-ranking universities listed by the 2009 Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS) World University Rankings were contacted by email between March 2010 and August 2010. 1,340 completed an online survey which focused on their academic background, negative experiences and views on biomedical journal peer review and the results were compared among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician scientists.Results: Fewer than half of the respondents agreed that the peer review systems of biomedical journals were fair (48.4%), scientific (47.5%), or transparent (25.1%). Nevertheless, 58.2% of the respondents agreed that authors should remain anonymous and 64.4% agreed that reviewers should not be disclosed. Most, (67.7%) agreed to the establishment of an appeal system. The proportion of native English-speaking respondents who agreed that the "peer review system is fair" was significantly higher than for non-native respondents (p = 0.02). Similarly, the proportion of clinicians stating that the "peer review system is fair" was significantly higher than that for basic scientists and clinician-scientists (p = 0.004). For females, (beta = -0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers' comments (beta = -0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (beta = -0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that "the peer review system is fair".Conclusion: Academics are divided on the issue of whether the biomedical journal peer review system is fair, scientific and transparent. A majority of academics agreed with the double-blind peer review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals.