ReviewBMC medical research methodology2013
Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of the researcher-led "Peerspectives" peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Article
- Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Trends in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Publications.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Scientists have favorable opinions on immunity certificates but raise concerns regarding fairness and inequality.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Common Topics of Publication and Levels of Evidence in the Current Hand Surgery Literature.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2019Article
- Suicide, Stigma, and Utilizing Social Media Platforms to Gauge Public Perceptions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.BMC medicine · 2018Article
- Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
- Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Article
- Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?Plant physiology · 2016Article
- Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.PloS one · 2016Article
- Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsFewer 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, (β = -0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers' comments (β = -0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (β = -0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that "the peer review system is fair".
conclusionAcademics 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.