ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2021
Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- German radiation oncology's next generation: a web-based survey of young biologists, medical physicists, and physicians-from problems to solutions.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Survey in radiation oncology departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: state of digitalization by 2023.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Double-anonymous peer review comes to JB.Journal of bacteriology · 2023Article
- Testicular germ cell tumour arising 15 years after radiotherapy with 18 Gy for germ cell neoplasia in situ.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology.
methodsIn November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform "eSurveyCreator". The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance.
resultsA total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal's articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses.
conclusionThe scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.
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.