Peer Reviewers Research Articles

PSLBI-4 Influence of gender on animal science research funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Abstract According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, females and males in science disciplines obtain bachelor’s degrees at or near parity, yet females are not equally represented in academic faculty positions. This is true for agricultural fields including the animal sciences. The USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), a flagship competitive grants program that funds research, education, and extension efforts with a total appropriation of $445 million in 2024. Our objective was to determine the difference between genders for submission rates (i.e., number of standard and seed grant applications submitted), peer reviewers of grant applications, and success rates (i.e., number of grant awards/number of applications submitted) in the main animal related AFRI program area priorities. All applications submitted to AFRI programs in animal genomics, reproduction, health, nutrition and growth, and welfare during yr 2013-2022 were evaluated. Gender was assigned to Project Directors (PD) and peer reviewers using first names as input into Gender API software (Gender-API.com; Passau, Germany) with ≥ 95% accuracy and ≥ 20 database occurrences used as quality filters and binary outcomes only (i.e., male or female). Effect of gender on submission rates, peer review panel compositions, and success rates were then analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests with P ≤ 0.05 considered significant. Results: A total of 3,757 applications were submitted, of which 2,761 (73%) PD genders were assigned and analyzed further. Overall, the proportional submission rate for females was 28% and for males was 72%. Submission rates for females increased (P = 0.0614) over time ranging from 22% in 2013 to 33% in 2021. Submission rates differed by gender across programs (P < 0.0001) and ranged from 23% female in animal reproduction to 48% female in animal welfare. Across 48 panels, 41% of panelists were female; no differences were identified for the proportion of female panelists over time (P = 0.9509) or by program (P = 0.9298). Overall, the funding success rate for females was 23% and for males was 22%. Success rates did not differ between genders over time (P = 0.9080) or by program (P = 0.9094). Females submitted less than one-half as many applications as did males, but the proportion of submissions by females increased over time. This trend remained consistent despite challenges of relocation of NIFA and COVID-19 during this time. Overall, the proportion of NIFA panelists who were female exceeded the proportion of applications submitted by females. Funding success rates did not differ by gender and increased for both genders over time. These results indicate that although differences in gender existed for application submission rate and panel composition, these differences did not impact funding success rate of applications in animal science programs at NIFA, which did not differ between genders.

Empowering Peer reviewers: How reviewer insights drive innovation at IOP Publishing

Empowering Peer reviewers: How reviewer insights drive innovation at IOP Publishing

MERIT (Manuscript Evaluation Reflecting Intrinsic Tenets): A Framework for Efficient and Equitable Academic Peer Review

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic integrity and rigor in research dissemination. This process, bridging knowledge creation and publication, demands considerable time and effort from content creators, reviewers, and editors. Peer review often entails multiple iterations across various journals, requiring hundreds of hours of commitment and often leading to frustration. However, this investment can be fruitful, enhancing manuscript quality, correcting errors, and ensuring appropriate audience targeting. Collectively, peer review consumes millions of hours and incurs billions in costs, largely borne by funding agencies and governments. This scenario raises critical questions about optimizing the process and the potential impact of reviewer education on efficiency and outcomes. Surprisingly, formal training for reviewers is scarce across undergraduate and graduate programs globally. Learning is predominantly informal, through mentorship or personal experience. Journals typically offer minimal guidance, relying on basic questions and rankings to assist editors. It is quite remarkable that such a loosely structured approach for peer review, with minimal guidance, is the norm for a process of great consequence. The outcomes of peer reviews can delay publications for years, significantly impact careers, and influence decisions on grants and promotions. This course introduces novel tools and concepts to refine the peer review process: 1) The “Main Result Justification Sheet,” created to make reviews more efficient and transparent for readers; 2) “Publicon,” a term inspired by the fundamental units of quantum physics such as the photon, representing the minimum quantum of information necessary to advance a field and merit publication in a peer-reviewed journal; and 3) A MERIT-based peer review model (Manuscript Evaluation Reflecting Intrinsic Tenets), outlining new guidelines that base acceptance solely on the intrinsic merits of the manuscript, with assessments of potential audience engagement and distribution determined subsequently. A key innovation of the MERIT-based model is the separation of the peer-review process from the distribution of the manuscript. Once a manuscript is validated through independent peer review, its distribution becomes a separate consideration. Authors or independent platforms can disseminate validated work efficiently, whether through evolving forms of what we currently call journals or social media. This separation ensures that the focus remains on the quality of the research itself, rather than on the prestige of the distributing entity. This course is designed to provide a structured framework to academic peer review with the goal of elevating quality, fostering equity, and minimizing bias. The course includes interactive sections with open-ended and multiple choice questions to stimulate thought and understanding. This course is designed for both novices and seasoned reviewers, aiming to refine their skills and adapt to specific academic fields.

Digital Discourse on the ChatGPT Controversy: Reflections on the Controversial Use of Artificial Intelligence Among Indonesian Youth

At the end of 2022, a nonprofit technology research institution funded by Altman and Musk released an AI-based chatbot, ChatGPT, which within just three months has shown utility across various industries, particularly in jobs like copywriting, news report writing, customer service, and legal document creation. Its ability to provide coherent and insightful answers, as well as serve as a brainstorming partner, has some college professors concerned that this machine may replace various human jobs (Stokel-Walker, 2022). One likely negative impact is students using this AI-based writing tool to complete academic assignments in the form of essays (Hutson, 2022). Another implication is that researchers (both students and lecturers) may be able to compose scientific texts, partially if not wholly, and escape the radar of AI-written text detection tools (Kim, 2022), as well as peer reviewers (Else, 2023). The methodology used is digital discourse, aiming to reveal how youth discourse influences the presence of the ChatGPT application and how the consumption practice of the application impacts their creativity and critical thinking skills. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to understanding the impact of AI-based chatbots on critical thinking abilities among young people as a basis for development strategies to enhance critical and creative thinking skills in the era of Artificial Intelligence.

Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.

The peer review process is used throughout science but has often been criticized for being inconsistent, with decisions dependent on the peers who did the reviewing. Much of the decision inconsistency arises from the differences between reviewers in terms of their expertise, training and experience. Another source of uncertainty is within reviewers as they must make a single recommendation (e.g. 'Accept'), when they may have wavered between two (e.g. 'Accept' or 'Reject'). We estimated the size of within-reviewer uncertainty using post-review surveys at three journals. We asked reviewers to think outside the recommendation they gave (e.g. 'Accept') and assign percentages to all other recommendations (e.g. 'Major revision'). Reviewers who were certain could assign 100% to one recommendation. Twenty-three per cent of reviewers reported no uncertainty (95% confidence interval 19-27%). Women were associated with more uncertainty at one journal, and protocol papers were associated with more uncertainty at one journal. Reviewers commonly experience some uncertainty when peer-reviewing journal articles. This uncertainty is part of the variability in peer reviewers' recommendation.

Preface

Dear Readers, I am pleased to announce the successful conclusion of the 2023 International Congress on Ultrasonics in Beijing (the 2023 ICU BEIJING), organized and hosted by the International Congress on Ultrasonics (ICU), the Institute of Acoustics in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IACAS), and the Acoustical Society of China (ASC) in September 2023. The 2023 ICU Beijing aimed to bring together professionals and experts from academia and industry across all disciplines of ultrasonics, encompassing fundamental science and applications such as engineering material characterization and quality inspection, chemical and biological US-based monitoring, medical imaging, and therapy, among others. This congress offered more than 830 presentations covering various domains of ultrasonics and their applications. The program included 7 keynote presentations from world experts, 63 invited lectures, 547 oral contributions, and around 220 posters. For further information, please visit https://www.2021icu.org.cn/. As usual, there will be a proceeding of the 2023 ICU BEIJING after the congress. Through collaborations with the International Organization Committee and the Scientific Committee of the 2023 ICU Beijing, etc., we have selected 800 peer-reviewed abstracts that were presented at the congress. These presentations reflected the state-of-the-art scientific advancements and technological progress in ultrasonic scientific research and applications in recent years. Due to the impact of COVID-19, there is still much high-quality research work not included. After the completion of the congress, we selected 202 submitted papers by our peer reviewers and scientific committee which will be published in the Journal of Physics Conference Series (JPCS) as the proceeding of the 2023 ICU BEIJING. On behalf of the Organizing Committee, the Scientific Committee of the 2023 ICU BEIJING, and the ICU Board Members, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to our Session Organizers, Plenary speakers, Session invited speakers, peer reviewers, IOP Publishers of the JPCS, as well as all those who have contributed to this proceeding. It is your participation and support that make the proceeding available. Yours sincerely, Xiuming Wang President of the 2023 ICU BEIJING Chair of the International Congress on Ultrasonics List of Scientific Committee Members of the Proceeding of 2023 ICU BEIJING are available in this Pdf.

President’s Column: Q&A With 2025 SPE President Olivier Houzé: A Roadmap for a Very Busy Year

_ This is a summary of the September episode of the President’s vodcast. Dive into the full video to catch the entire conversation. _ Welcome to the Society of Petroleum Engineers’ President’s message with 2025 President Olivier Houzé. I’m Pam Boschee, director of SPE magazines, and Olivier joins me today to share his thoughts about being named president with the official passing of the baton from 2024 President Terry Palisch at our Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE) in New Orleans this month. He holds an engineering degree from École Polytechnique and an MSc in petroleum engineering from Stanford University. He started his career as a field well-test operator with Schlumberger (SLB). He is the co-founder and managing director of KAPPA Engineering, a reservoir and production engineering software company. Olivier has been involved in many SPE summits, forums, and workshops. He coauthored an SPE and SPEE Monograph. He was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer in 2013 and served on the SPE Board as Technical Director for Reservoir from 2012 to 2015. In 2019, he received the SPE Lester C. Uren Award for Technical Excellence, and an SPE Honorary Member Award in 2022. Olivier, let’s start by hearing a bit about your journey and what has led you to this pivotal role within SPE. _ After my petroleum degree I started my professional career with Flopetrol, the well-testing arm of Schlumberger (now SLB) at that time. I started as a field engineer, mainly in the Middle East and the North Sea. Even many years later I still consider myself a well-test chief operator. At age 28 I left Schlumberger, co-founded KAPPA and wrote the first version of a piece of well-test software that is still around today. My professional career has centered on the development of my company over the past 37 years. I joined SPE as a student. During this time, Hank Ramey, who was our department head, would tell his Stanford students that joining SPE was not an option. When I visit sections these days, I am impressed by the volunteerism and dedication of students and young professionals. I feel a bit guilty because it was not my case when I was their age. I started with SPE as a consumer. I would publish papers, attend events, and use SPE exhibitions and JPT ads to commercially develop my company. My service to SPE was limited: some peer reviews, joining event committees, co-chairing events, that sort of thing. Whenever I attended an SPE event, my goal was to come back home with at least one technical idea for the development of my company. It worked, invariably. It would not necessarily be from a paper publication or a plenary session. Sometimes the idea would come whilst having a drink with a colleague on the side of the event. To me SPE was, first and foremost, a fantastic facilitator.

Thank you to Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery peer reviewers

Thank you to Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery peer reviewers

Thank You to Peer Reviewers

Thank You to Peer Reviewers

Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure

Introduction: Women continue to remain under-represented in academic publishing in cardiology. Some evidence suggests that double-blind peer reviews may mitigate the impact of gender bias. In July 2021, the Journal of Cardiac Failure implemented a process for the conduct of double-blind reviews after previously utilizing single-blind reviews with the aim of improving author diversity. The purpose of the current manuscript was to examine the association between changes in authorship characteristics and implementation of double-blind reviews. Methods: Manuscripts were stratified into 3 eras: March – September 2021 (Era 1 – prior to double blind reviews), March – September 2022 (Era 2), and March – September 2023 (Era 3). All article types except invited editorials were included. Data were abstracted, including names, genders, ranks, and discipline of first and senior authors. Results: A total of 310 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3 while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time around 21-22%. Even after adjusting for region, article type, first author discipline, and last author gender, there was an increase in female first author over time (p= 0.015). Manuscripts with a female senior author were significantly more likely to have a female first author. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that double-blind peer review may contribute to increased gender diversity of first authors and highlight areas for future improvement for JCF and academic publishing.

Evaluating a Comprehensive Toolkit for Journal Editors and Publishers: Insights from Nepal and Developing Nations

The Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Publishing (C4DISC) has published a focused toolkit to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in scientific publications and help editors and publishers create a more inclusive and equitable publishing environment. The online toolkit has several sections. Among the recommendations are developing an inclusive culture and mission, collecting and reporting demographic data of authors, reviewers and editors using inclusive terminology, recruiting broadly and internationally for the positions of journal editors, board members and reviewers, train and mentor peer reviewers, and fostering equity in peer review. Many recommendations can be easily adopted by developing country journals while some others may be more challenging. The toolkit is a good initiative to promote diversity, equity, inclusivity and accessibility in academic publishing.

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of ‘publish or perish’. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

Is the tail wagging the dog? Understanding the value of incentives in peer review

Incentives for efforts expended in peer review remain controversial, as one of us [https://www.morressier.com/o/event/655b8f316515150019d5f90b/sessions/6569ca7c8d0e640013427ec3?eventId=655b8f316515150019d5f90b] reported at the recent APE Meeting in Berlin 2024. Publishers and researchers have different views on if, and how, peer review should and could be rewarded. We surveyed researchers regularly performing peer review for journals as well as editors and journal managers who assign articles in order to look at the use of incentives and how these influence behavior. Incentives for peer review remain relatively rare overall: Results show that more than 80% of editorial board members said they ‘did not reward’ or ‘rewarded in less than 25% of cases’, while, at the same time, the same proportion of respondents felt that rewarding peer reviewers would be a good idea. The majority of our respondents felt that giving ‘something was better than nothing’ and that a token incentive would help. In terms of actual rewards, APC tokens are both wanted (52%) and awarded (42%) while certificates are given far more (43%) than they are actually wanted (12%). Surprisingly, money is given out far less (4%) than wanted (27%); this reward is not actually desired as much as one might expect.

Teaching and Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Skills in a Case-Based Veterinary Cardiology Elective.

Clinical reasoning (CR) is an important clinical competency for effective veterinary practice. We hypothesized that implementing an explicit 7-week CR curriculum taught in a large-enrollment elective veterinary cardiology course would improve students' awareness of clinical reasoning principles, self-efficacy of CR skills, and application of CR principles in clinical case analyses. A secondary aim was to assess the impact of peer review as a means of providing feedback in a large classroom setting. A mixed method approach was used with veterinary students (N = 78) in a cardiology elective course meeting twice weekly for a half-semester (7 weeks). Course content included a 1-week introduction to CR led by the instructor and 6 weeks of instructor-facilitated, case-based learning. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected, including pre- and post-course surveys, weekly peer reviews for six clinical case assignments, and instructor-graded clinical cases for three case assignments. Students reported improved self-efficacy across all CR skill categories (p < .001) and significant improvement in applied CR skills was demonstrated in both peer- (p < .001) and instructor-graded assignments (p < .001). Peer reviews provided a means for students to reflect on and internalize CR skills, which may play a role in improved self-efficacy. In an elective cardiology course, implementing an explicit CR curriculum resulted in improved student awareness and self-efficacy of CR, as well as improved applied CR skills.

University Dropout: A Systematic Review of the Main Determinant Factors

Introduction This research is a systematic review aimed at synthesizing scientific evidence on the causes of university dropout, focusing on the subcategories of vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects between 2020 and June 2024. Methods Only articles addressing university dropout were considered, analyzing dimensions such as vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects. Articles published in indexed scientific journals with double-blind, double-blind peer, or open reviews between 2020 and June 2024 were included. The main databases used were Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. To assess the risk of bias in qualitative studies, the criteria from the article “Validity criteria for qualitative research: three epistemological strands for the same purpose” were used. For quantitative studies, the criteria from the article “Evaluating survey research in articles published in Library Science journals” were followed. For mixed-method studies, both sets of criteria were combined. Results A total of 23 studies were included: 15 quantitative (65.22%), 3 qualitative (13.04%), and 5 mixed-method (21.74%). All studies (100%) addressed the subcategories of socioeconomic status and institutional aspects. Regarding the academic performance subcategory, 86% of the studies addressed it, while the vocational guidance subcategory was covered by 73.91% of the studies. Conclusions Vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects are crucial for reducing university dropout. Providing adequate professional guidance, academic support, financial assistance, and strong institutional support is fundamental to improving student retention and academic success.

Realist analysis of qualitative data in health professions education research.

Qualitative realist analysis is gaining in popularity in health professions education research (HPER) as part of theory-driven program evaluation. Although realist approaches such as syntheses and evaluations typically advocate mixed methods, qualitative data dominate currently. Various forms of qualitative analysis have been articulated in HPER, yet realist analysis has not. Although realist analysis is interpretive, it moves beyond description to explain generative causation employing retroductive theorising. Ultimately, it attempts to build and/or 'test' (confirm, refute or refine) theory about how, why, for whom, when and to what extent programs work using the context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOC) heuristic. This paper aims to help readers better critique, conduct and report qualitative realist analysis. We describe four fundamentals of qualitative realist analysis: (1) simultaneous data collection/analysis; (2) retroductive theorising; (3) configurational analysis (involving iterative phases of identifying CMOCs, synthesising CMOCs into demi-regularities and translating demi-regularities into program theory); and (4) realist analysis quality (relevance, rigour, richness). Next, we provide a critical analysis of realist analyses employed in 15 HPER outputs-three evaluations and 12 syntheses. Finally, drawing on our understandings of realist literature and our experiences of conducting qualitative realist analysis (both evaluations and syntheses), we articulate three common analysis challenges (coding, consolidation and mapping) and strategies to mitigate these challenges (teamwork, reflexivity and consultation, use of data analysis software and graphical representations of program theory). Based on our critical analysis of the literature and realist analysis experiences, we encourage researchers, peer reviewers and readers to better understand qualitative realist analysis fundamentals. Realist analysts should draw on relevant realist reporting standards and literature on realist analysis to improve the quality and reporting of realist analysis. Through better understanding the common challenges and mitigation strategies for realist analysis, we can collectively improve the quality of realist analysis in HPER.

Towards a minimum data set for the female stress urinary incontinence surgical literature: a collaborative work.

There has been a need for an acceptable common minimum data set in the scientific literature as regards the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Such a data set, if widely adopted, would improve the quality of the literature and allow objective comparisons between and across interventions. The surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence has evolved considerably over the past few decades. The corresponding body of literature has grown exponentially describing the outcomes of hundreds of studies of these novel interventions. However, historically, the literature in this space has been of uneven quality. In order to improve the reporting of clinical studies, and ultimately patient outcomes, a standard minimum data set for trial design and publications was created by a collaborative group formed from leading scientific societies. The consensus document created from this novel collaboration between members of SUFU (Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine & Urogenital Reconstruction), AUGS (American Urogynecologic Society), and ICS (International Continence Society) provides clear guidance for the structure of clinical studies and reporting of results in the peer-reviewed literature. This has substantial potential ramifications for scientific journals, journal editors, peer reviewers, investigators, regulatory agencies, industry, clinicians, and patients.

Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions

AbstractBackgroundHistorically, peer reviewing has focused on the importance of research questions/hypotheses, appropriateness of research methods, risk of bias, and quality of writing. Until recently, the issues related to trustworthiness—including but not limited to plagiarism and fraud—have been largely neglected because of lack of awareness and lack of adequate tools/training. We set out to identify all relevant papers that have tackled the issue of trustworthiness assessment to identify key domains that have been suggested as an integral part of any such assessment.MethodsWe searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists, or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials. Data items (questions) were extracted from the included publications and transcribed on Excel including the assessment domain. Both authors then independently recategorised each data item in five domains (governance, plausibility, plagiarism, reporting, and statistics).ResultsFrom the 41 publications we extracted a total of 284 questions and framed 77 summary questions grouped in five domains: governance (13 questions), plausibility (17 questions), plagiarism (4 questions), reporting (29 questions), and statistics (14 questions).ConclusionThe proposed menu of domains and questions should encourage peer reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers and developers of guidelines to engage in a more formal trustworthiness assessment. Methodologists should aim to identify the domains and questions that should be considered mandatory, those that are optional depending on the resources available, and those that could be discarded because of lack of discriminatory power.

Art, AI and Robotics: A New Pathway for Youth to Voice and Identity

To address the critical lack of representation in computer science and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics), we designed learning experiences for high school youth using culturally situated art and design principles structured to increase authentic engagement, particularly for underrepresented and underestimated youth. Referencing sociocultural practices from hip-hop, we invited students to engage with us in an iterative process of storytelling, creation, and fabrication. Through design cyphers, we centered student knowledge to define the why behind making robotic prototypes and address the benefits and dangers of artificial intelligence such as bias and stereotypes. By integrating cyphers into the design thinking process, we created spaces for students to communicate, collaborate, and create innovative solutions to prototype, iterate, remix, and advance to their final project. In collaborative peer reviews and gallery walks, the groups received constructive critiques at each step of the design process, from prototype to final project.

Engaging undergraduate students in preprint peer review

Authentic assessment allows students to demonstrate knowledge and skills in real-world tasks. In research, peer review is one such task that researchers learn by doing, as they evaluate other researchers’ work. This means peer review could serve as an authentic assessment that engages students’ critical thinking skills in a process of active learning. In this study, we had students write peer reviews of preprints, scaffolded by a rubric. Agreement between the students and academics was reasonable, and active student involvement was high. The results suggest that use of peer review in undergraduate classes should be explored more. It likely facilitates students’ ability to evaluate the quality of scientific studies, encourages active learning about the scientific process and shows potential for contributing to publicly-available assessment of scientific studies.