ArticleBMJ open2015
Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Ten simple rules for suggesting reviewers during a paper submission.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Article
- The editor endeavours, aims and standards in a surgery journal: our experience with "International Orthopaedics" and the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie publications.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- How to evaluate reviewers - the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS).International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Review
- Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Ten considerations for open peer review.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Peer review and the publication process.Nursing open · 2016Review
- How open science helps researchers succeed.eLife · 2016Article
- Towards an open science publishing platform.F1000Research · 2016Article
- Article
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
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.
designRetrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.
settingBioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. SAMPLE: Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.
resultsFor each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.
conclusionsReviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.
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.