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.
Highlights
The field of radiation oncology is continuously changing due to development of new radiation delivery and planning techniques, new systemic anticancer agents and demographic changes
We aimed to evaluate and analyse the reviewing behaviour in German-speaking countries (Austria, Switzerland and Germany) in the field of radiation oncology
In order to broadly address eligible participants, invitations were initially sent to members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO), German Society for Biological Radiation Research (DeGBS), German Society for Medical Physics (DGMP), Austrian Society of Radiooncology (ÖGRO) and the Swiss Society of Radiation Oncology (SRO) as well as through direct peer-to-peer contacts
Summary
The field of radiation oncology is continuously changing due to development of new radiation delivery and planning techniques, new systemic anticancer agents and demographic changes. Scientific journals have the important goal of disseminating these latest study results and contribute to the cumulative knowledge of the scientific community. With an increasing number of oncology journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports [1, 2], from 143 in 2008 to 230 in 2018, continuous and high-quality reviewing assessment is becoming more and more important. The increasing importance of the impact factor (IF) needs to be considered for quality and the number of manuscript submissions as well as for the motivation to contribute as a reviewer [3, 4]. Smaller or regional journals with a lower IF may encounter more difficulties in maintaining a proper review process. Higherranked journals seemed to be more effective concerning the duration of the first review round, total review duration and immediate rejection time [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
