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.
Highlights
Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article
The median number of scientific papers published in peer review journals was 50 and the mean number of years of experience in conducting biomedical research and publication was 20.7
The median number of scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals was similar for clinicians (50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 45–50) and basic scientists (50, 95% CI: 45–60)
Summary
Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. Peer review has been the major method to determine the fate of an article submitted to biomedical journals. The process involves inviting reviewers to evaluate an article [1] They make recommendations to an editor concerning the decision as to whether or not the article should be published. Fletcher and Fletcher argued that there is no ethical or scientific subsequent Nobel laureate’s article on the causes of peptic ulcer was rejected for publication [7]. These instances could be attributed to the bias of editors or reviewers. Wager and Jefferson [9] (2001) highlighted some of the shortcomings of peer review, including its failure to discover errors and fraud, inefficiency, unnecessary delay and potential scientific misconduct when reviewers abuse their power in the peer-review system (e.g. rejecting a paper and plagiarizing its ideas and results) [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
