Introduction Peer review is a volunteer process for improving the quality of publications by providing objective feedback to authors, but also presents an opportunity for reviewers to seek personal reward by requesting self-citations. Open peer review may reduce the prevalence of self-citation requests and encourage author rebuttal over accession. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-citation requests and their inclusion in manuscripts in a journal with open peer review. Methods Requests for additional references to be included during peer review for articles published between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 in BMC Medicine were evaluated. Data extracted included total number of self-citations requested, self-citations that were included in the final published manuscript and manuscripts that included at least one self-citation, and compared with corresponding data on independent citations. Results In total, 932 peer review reports from 373 manuscripts were analysed. At least one additional citation was requested in 25.9% (n = 241) of reports. Self-citation requests were included in 44.4% of reports requesting additional citations (11.5% of all reports). Requests for self-citation were significantly more likely than independent citations to be incorporated in the published manuscript (65.1% vs 52.1%; chi-square p = 0.003). At the manuscript level, when requested, self-citations were incorporated in 76.6% of manuscripts (n = 72; 19.3% of all manuscripts) compared with 68.5% of manuscripts with independent citation requests (n = 102; 27.3% of manuscripts). A significant interaction was observed between the presence of self-citation requests and the likelihood of any citation request being incorporated (100% incorporation in manuscripts with self-citation requests alone versus 62.7-72.2% with any independent citation request; Fisher's exact test p<0.0005).
Introduction Peer review is a volunteer process for improving the quality of publications by providing objective feedback to authors, but also presents an opportunity for reviewers to seek personal reward by requesting self-citations. Open peer review may reduce the prevalence of self-citation requests and encourage author rebuttal over accession. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-citation requests and their inclusion in manuscripts in a journal with open peer review. Methods Requests for additional references to be included during peer review for articles published between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 in BMC Medicine were evaluated. Data extracted included total number of self-citations requested, self-citations that were included in the final published manuscript and manuscripts that included at least one self-citation, and compared with corresponding data on independent citations. Results In total, 932 peer review reports from 373 manuscripts were analysed. At least one additional citation was requested in 25.9% (n=241) of reports. Self-citation requests were included in 44.4% of reports requesting additional citations (11.5% of all reports). Requests for self-citation were significantly more likely than independent citations to be incorporated in the published manuscript (65.1% vs 52.1%; chi-square p=0.003). At the manuscript level, when requested, self-citations were incorporated in 76.6% of manuscripts (n=72; 19.3% of all manuscripts) compared with 68.5% of manuscripts with independent citation requests (n=102; 27.3% of manuscripts). A significant interaction was observed between the presence of self-citation requests and the likelihood of any citation request being incorporated (100% incorporation in manuscripts with self-citation requests alone versus 62.7-72.2% with any independent citation request; Fisher's exact test p<0.0005). Conclusions Requests for self-citations during the peer review process are common. The transparency of open peer review may have the unexpected effect of encouraging authors to incorporate self-citation requests by disclosing peer reviewer identity.
BACKGROUND Resident continuity clinics (RCCs) provide an opportunity for residents to gain experience with longitudinal care in an outpatient setting. RCCs have become a part of almost all recognized residency training programs across specialties in North America. However, the structure, function, and effectiveness of RCCs vary widely. OBJECTIVES To determine resident perspective on the structure and function of paediatric RCCs and investigate which factors were associated with resident satisfaction with paediatric RCCs. DESIGN/METHODS A qualitative survey of Canadian paediatric resident trainees was conducted to assess their RCC experience. The survey was administered through the REDCap© database and distributed through the Canadian Pediatric Program Directors Consortium in June-July 2016. RESULTS There were 127 respondents. Approximately 40% participated in RCCs. The majority of respondents were likely to recommend RCCs to other programs. The most common structure reported was a monthly half-day clinic overseen by an academic paediatrician. Referrals were mainly from inpatient wards, emergency department or family physicians. The majority of residents were satisfied with their experience (n=33, 71.7%). Participants in resident-run RCCs had more positive views compared to participants in staff-run RCCs (all U≥25.0, p≤0.009). Contributing factors to a positive RCC experience included patient-resident continuity, being viewed as the main care provider, and learning to make independent management decisions. CONCLUSION Almost all respondents felt that RCCs should be part of paediatric residency training. Further research is needed to determine the optimal structure for paediatric RCCs. Understanding our current training environment is an important precursor for informing program leadership and national policymakers who wish to improve ambulatory care training
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.