International authorship in leading world journals on incontinence and pelvic floor disorders: Is it truly international?

Najjar, Wassim; Mouanness, Marco; Rameh, Georges; Bazi, Tony

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.08.017

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2,5 Studies have shown that US-based reviewers are more likely to accept US-based authors, 1 and 36.4% of authors from lower-income countries (non-members of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development) believe there may be a bias against manuscripts published by authors from their own countries. 6 Peer-review is critical as it provides the scientific community with confidence that there has been an examination of the scientific validity of the data and it is the gold-standard for evaluating work in scientific journals. 7 While the majority of articles published in academic fields, including ophthalmology, are reviewed in a single-blinded manner, the ideal method of peer-review is often debated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Kalavar

Watane

et al. 2021

Seminars in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objectives: To assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals. Methods:A cross-sectional study analyzing the top ten nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals.Results: There was no significant difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal's country of origin between the top single-blind journals and top double-blind journals (SB= 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p=0.49) but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB=48.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.02). However, there was no significant difference for both country of origin (SB =38.0%, DB =26.6%, p=0.43) and articles from the US (SB=35.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.21) when assessing the top 8 double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor.The countries that most commonly made the top ten lists for highest number of articles were the US (n=16, 100%) and England (n=16, 100%). This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England=11/12). Conclusions:There was no statistically significant difference in country-of-origin representation between single-blind journals and double-blind journals. However, higher income countries contributed most often to the journals studied even among journals based outside the US.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Kalavar

Watane

et al. 2021

Seminars in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Since many of the major peer-reviewed journals are established in high-income countries, one possible explanation is an associated geographical bias where reviewers of a certain country are more likely to accept articles from their own country or articles from nations with “track records.” 2,5 Studies have shown that US-based reviewers are more likely to accept US-based authors, 1 and 36.4% of authors from lower-income countries (non-members of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development) believe there may be a bias against manuscripts published by authors from their own countries. 6…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Kalavar

Watane

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/ObjectivesTo assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals.MethodsA cross-sectional study analyzing the top ten nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal’s country of origin between the top single-blind journals and top double-blind journals (SB= 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p=0.49) but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB=48.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.02). However, there was no significant difference for both country of origin (SB =38.0%, DB =26.6%, p=0.43) and articles from the US (SB=35.0%, DB=22.8%, p=0.21) when assessing the top 8 double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor. The countries that most commonly made the top ten lists for highest number of articles were the US (n=16, 100%) and England (n=16, 100%). This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England=11/12).ConclusionsThere was no statistically significant difference in country-of-origin representation between single-blind journals and double-blind journals. However, higher income countries contributed most often to the journals studied even among journals based outside the US.

show abstract

Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

Bazi

2019

Int Urogynecol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International authorship in leading world journals on incontinence and pelvic floor disorders: Is it truly international?

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About