Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

Purpose

To 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01729-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Muscle-driven and torque-driven centrodes during modeled flexion of individual lumbar spines are disparate

Lumbar spine biomechanics during the forward-bending of the upper body (flexion) are well investigated by both in vivo and in vitro experiments. In both cases, the experimentally observed relative motion of vertebral bodies can be used to calculate the instantaneous center of rotation (ICR). The timely evolution of the ICR, the centrode, is widely utilized for validating computer models and is thought to serve as a criterion for distinguishing healthy and degenerative motion patterns. While in vivo motion can be induced by physiological active structures (muscles), in vitro spinal segments have to be driven by external torque-applying equipment such as spine testers. It is implicitly assumed that muscle-driven and torque-driven centrodes are similar. Here, however, we show that centrodes qualitatively depend on the impetus. Distinction is achieved by introducing confidence regions (ellipses) that comprise centrodes of seven individual multi-body simulation models, performing flexion with and without preload. Muscle-driven centrodes were generally directed superior–anterior and tail-shaped, while torque-driven centrodes were located in a comparably narrow region close to the center of mass of the caudal vertebrae. We thus argue that centrodes resulting from different experimental conditions ought to be compared with caution. Finally, the applicability of our method regarding the analysis of clinical syndromes and the assessment of surgical methods is discussed.