ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Survey of challenges and insights into the peer review process in anesthesiology and pain journals: An editorial perspective.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Peer review has been the cornerstone of academic publishing for nearly 400 years, serving as a critical gatekeeping mechanism for new knowledge. However, it faces significant criticisms, including reviewer fatigue, superficial evaluations, and potential biases. This study aims to explore the peer review process within anesthesiology and pain medicine journals from the editors' perspectives, focusing on criteria for selecting reviewers and managing divergences between peer reviewers and authors. Methods: We conducted an online survey targeting editors in anesthesiology and pain medicine journals listed in the Scopus database. A total of 2083 unique editors were identified, and invitations to participate were sent via email, supplemented by reminders. The survey consisted of 27 questions regarding editorial roles, reviewer selection, and challenges in the peer review process. Results: A total of 207 editors entered the final analysis (9.9% of the sample). The survey revealed that most editors prioritize familiarity with reviewers' expertise over diversity of perspectives. A notable 61.8% of editors reported moderate workloads, yet challenges such as securing qualified reviewers and managing reviewer burnout were prevalent. While 55.8% expressed satisfaction with the current system, 69.9% identified a need for better reviewer training, and 8.3% suggested compensating reviewers as a potential enhancement to the process. Conclusions: Our findings highlight significant strengths and weaknesses in the peer review process for anesthesiology and pain medicine journals. There is an urgent need for improved strategies to diversify the reviewer pool and provide adequate training and support for reviewers.
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.