<b>Peer Review at the <i>American Journal of Roentgenology</i>:</b> How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers

Kliewer, Mark A.; DeLong, David M.; Freed, Kelly S; Jenkins, Charles B.; Paulson, Erik K.; Provenzale, James M.

doi:10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831545

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there was an alarming lack of interest or a nonresponse bias from the senior researchers we contacted through the two largest listservs in the disciplines of ecology and evolution. There are several possible explanations for reviewers becoming increasingly critical with greater experience, such as more junior scientists are less familiar with the expectations associated with successful publication, or, less positively, referees generally become harder to impress as they become older and more experienced (Kliewer et al 2004), or that elements associated with "doing science" increases our capacity to critically review the research of our peers. In all instances, it is evident that we should view this variation as a positive opportunity to enhance the peer-review system, and introduce formal training early in the education and research pipeline.…”

Section: Femalementioning

confidence: 99%

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

Borsuk¹,

Aarssen²,

Budden³

et al. 2009

BioScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The peer review model is one of the most important tools used in science to assess the relative merit of research. We manipulated a published article to reflect one of the following four author designations: female, male, initial, and no name provided. This article was then reviewed by referees of both genders at various stages of scientific training. Name changing did not influence acceptance rates or quality ratings. Undergraduate referees were less critical than graduate students or postdoctoral researchers, independent of gender. However, female postdoctoral researchers were the most critical referees: Their rejection rates were the highest and quality ratings the lowest, regardless of the author name provided. Contrary to previous reports in the literature, there was no evidence of same-gender preferences. This study strongly suggests that female postgraduate biologists may apply different expectations to peer review.

show abstract

Section: Femalementioning

confidence: 99%

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

Borsuk¹,

Aarssen²,

Budden³

et al. 2009

BioScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The peer-review process is an evaluation tool used to assess the merit of scientific work [1], [2]. Referees, experts in a particular field, are crucial to the success of the review system by providing impartial judgment on emerging research of their peers and colleagues [3]–[6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies from various scientific disciplines have focused on the integrity of referees in assessing manuscripts and whether evaluations are based solely on the intrinsic quality of the manuscript or on factors unrelated to the research [1], [3], [10]–[12]. For instance, gender [10], [13], status [13] and an author's country of affiliation [11], [12] have been demonstrated to affect the referee recommendation to publish or reject a given manuscript [1], [3], [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The characteristics of referees and the potential subsequent effects on the peer-review process are an important consideration for science since the integrity of the system depends on the appropriate evaluation of merit. In 2006, we conducted an online survey of 1334 ecologists and evolutionary biologists pertaining to the review process. Respondents were from Europe, North America and other regions of the world, with the majority from English first language countries. Women comprised a third of all respondents, consistent with their representation in the scientific academic community. Among respondents we found no correlation between the time typically taken over a review and the reported average rejection rate. On average, Europeans took longer over reviewing a manuscript than North Americans, and females took longer than males, but reviewed fewer manuscripts. Males recommended rejection of manuscripts more frequently than females, regardless of region. Hence, editors and potential authors should consider alternative sets of criteria, to what exists now, when selecting a panel of referees to potentially balance different tendencies by gender or region.

show abstract

“…*)% (% +.1,.-9(,&% F<*&% )*A(&(A6*G% .25(9&% ",% &'*% -,(6% ).+5"+.&. ",% ";% (% +0A2.&&*)% 5(5*#% (Kliewer et al 2004). Especially challenged are non-English speaking researchers as they try to communicate &'*.#% -,).,1+% .,% &'*% 90##*,&% +9.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer‐review for the peer‐review system

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of peer-review of papers submitted for publication and of grant proposals is widely accepted in modern science as a crucial guarantee of high-quality work. Foremost in restricted research areas, anonymous reviewers and editors may use their power to slow down or even reject competitive yet worthwhile work that does not fit or is questioning their own dogmas. This potential peers conflict of interest of may be particularly expressed in areas where empirical proofs of findings are de facto impossible, e.g. in physical anthropology. An example, two-way anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process improves the overall quality of evaluation but it is hard to implement in a highly specialized research field. Yet, the introduction of a completely open peer-review policy would most likely be supported by the overwhelming majority of reviewers. Furthermore, it may increase the overall quality of peer-review with reviewers to have their name acknowledged. Science should be about the possibility of advertising fresh concepts on evidence-based results in a non-biased, egalitarian, and open way with transparency the prime goal of editing such scientific discourse. By raising our foremost concerns and, hopefully, by the implementation of the proposed policy, we believe that these stated goals can be achieved, thus enhancing the true purpose of peer review particularly in the complex situation of scientific niches. human _ ontogenetic s 3

show abstract

**Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology:** How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers

Abstract: At the AJR, manuscript acceptance was most strongly associated with reviewer scoring of the science and import of a major paper and also with the country of origin. Reviewers who were older and of higher academic rank tended to discount the importance of manuscripts.

Cited by 33 publications

References 18 publications

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution

Peer‐review for the peer‐review system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers

Abstract: At the AJR, manuscript acceptance was most strongly associated with reviewer scoring of the science and import of a major paper and also with the country of origin. Reviewers who were older and of higher academic rank tended to discount the importance of manuscripts.

Cited by 33 publications

References 18 publications

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution

Peer‐review for the peer‐review system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

**Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology:** How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers