Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

Abstract

BackgroundPeer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally.MethodsA total of 28,009 biomedical academics from high-ranking universities listed by the 2009 Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS) World University Rankings were contacted by email between March 2010 and August 2010. 1,340 completed an online survey which focused on their academic background, negative experiences and views on biomedical journal peer review and the results were compared among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician scientists.ResultsFewer than half of the respondents agreed that the peer review systems of biomedical journals were fair (48.4%), scientific (47.5%), or transparent (25.1%). Nevertheless, 58.2% of the respondents agreed that authors should remain anonymous and 64.4% agreed that reviewers should not be disclosed. Most, (67.7%) agreed to the establishment of an appeal system. The proportion of native English-speaking respondents who agreed that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than for non-native respondents (p = 0.02). Similarly, the proportion of clinicians stating that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than that for basic scientists and clinician-scientists (p = 0.004). For females, (β = −0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers’ comments (β = −0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (β = −0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that “the peer review system is fair”.ConclusionAcademics are divided on the issue of whether the biomedical journal peer review system is fair, scientific and transparent. A majority of academics agreed with the double-blind peer review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals.

Teaching Presence Influencing Online Students’ Course Satisfaction at an Institution of Higher Education

“…Theoretically, the greater the sample size, the smaller the response rate would be (Hamilton, 2009;Ho et al, 2013;Nulty, 2008).…”

Commentary: Peer Review and Incomplete Reference Lists

“…The well-known shortcomings and poor reliability of peer review (Colin de Gluocester, 2013;Ho et al, 2013;Newton, 2010;Onitilo et al, 2013;Smith, 2010) as well as the proverbial power and almost royal unaccountability of many editors (Newton, 2010;Smith, 2008) lead me to describe here an instructive experience.…”

Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?

“…In your article, you quote the survey of Ho et al (2013) criticizing TPR to note that "only 39.6% of respondents believed that reviewers were competent." You also criticize TPR for engaging 'peers' who may be underqualified, unqualified, or positively biased.…”