Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal

An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks.

CONCLUSION

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts.

A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review

INTRODUCTION

Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities.

METHODS

Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles.

RESULTS

Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

Publication bias (PB) is the preferential publishing of studies with statistically significant results. PB can skew findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), with potential consequences for patient care and health policy. This study aims to determine the extent to which SRs and MAs in the plastic surgery literature evaluate and report PB.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study assessed PB reporting and analysis from plastic surgery studies published between January 1, 2015, and June 19, 2020. Full texts of SRs and MAs were assessed by two reviewers for PB assessment methodology and analysis. Post hoc assessment of studies that did not originally analyze PB was performed using Egger regression, Duval, Tweedie trim-and-fill, and Copas selection models.

RESULTS

There were 549 studies evaluated, of which 531 full texts were included. PB was discussed by 183 studies (34.5%), and formally assessed by 97 studies (18.3%). Among SRs and MAs that formally assessed PB, PB was present in 24 studies (10.7%), not present in 52 (23.1%), and inconclusive in eight (3.6%); 141 studies (62.7%) did not report the results of their PB assessment. Funnel plots were the most common assessment method [ n = 88 (39.1%)], and 60 studies (68.2%) published funnel plots. The post hoc assessment revealed PB in 17 of 20 studies (85.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PB is inadequately reported and analyzed among studies in the plastic surgery literature. Most studies that assessed PB found PB, as did post hoc analysis of nonreporting studies. Increased assessment and reporting of PB among SRs and MAs would improve the quality of evidence in plastic surgery.

Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer

Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called «peer review», considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers -and authors- to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.

Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review

This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.

Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

Objectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

Lifting the lid on impact and peer review

Brain and Neuroscience Advances has grown in tandem with the British Neuroscience Association’s campaign to build Credibility in Neuroscience, which encourages actions and initiatives aimed at improving reproducibility, reliability and openness. This commitment to credibility impacts not only what the Journal publishes, but also how it operates. With that in mind, the Editorial Board sought the views of the neuroscience community on the peer review process, and on how they should respond to the Journal Impact Factor that will be assigned to Brain and Neuroscience Advances. In this editorial, we present the results of a survey of neuroscience researchers conducted in the autumn of 2020 and discuss the broader implications of our findings for the Journal and the neuroscience community.

Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

OBJECTIVE

To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals.

METHODS

Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included.

RESULTS

Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal's impact factor.

CONCLUSION

Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

Peer review is widely accepted as essential to ensuring scientific quality in academic journals, yet little training is provided in the specifics of how to conduct peer review. In this article we describe the different forms of peer review, with a particular focus on the differences between single-blind, double-blind and open peer review, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. These illustrate some of the challenges facing the community of authors, editors, reviewers and readers in relation to the process of peer review. We also describe other forms of peer review, such as post-publication review, transferable review and collaborative review, and encourage clinicians and academics at all training stages to engage in the practice of peer review as part of continuing professional development.

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review

Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Triple- and quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces "Skin in the Game" heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system.

Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period.

METHODS

We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation.

RESULTS

While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.