Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: An online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Ho, Roger Chun Man ^a   Mak, Kwok Kei ^b   Tao, Ren ^a,c   Lu, Yanxia ^a   Day, Jeffrey R ^b   Pan, Fang ^d  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c Dept Medicine Endocrinol Diabet   (Singapore)

^d SHANDONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Academics; Biomedical journal; Online survey; Peer review

Indexed keywords

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW; REVIEW; STANDARD; UNIVERSITY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; FACULTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84878654247     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-74     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. The usefulness of peer review for selecting articles for publication: a utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. Bornmann L, Daniel HD, PLoS One 2010 5 11344 10.1371/journal.pone.0011344 20596540
2. The effectiveness of editorial peer review. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Peer review in health sciences London: BMJ Books, Godless FJT, 1999 45 55
3. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Mahoney M, Cogn Ther Res 1977 1 161 175 10.1007/BF01173636
4. Bias, subjectivity, and COI in editorial decisions. Godlee FDK, Peer review in health sciences London: BMJ Books, Godless FJT, 1999 57 78
5. Retraction-Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Wakefield AJ, Lancet 2010 375 445 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4 20137807
6. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, Kang SK, Kwon DK, Kim S, Kim SJ, Park SW, Kwon HS, Lee CK, et al. Science 2005 308 1777 1783 10.1126/science.1112286 15905366
7. Addressing conflicts of interest and clouding of objectivity: BJSM's "peer review: fair review" section. Khan KM, Stovitz SD, Pluim B, Cook JL, Bahr R, Arendt EA, Noakes TD, Br J Sports Med 2008 42 79 18256294
8. Problems with peer review. Henderson M, Br Med J 2010 340 1409 10.1136/bmj.c1409
9. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Wager E, Jefferson T, Learned Publishing 2001 14 257 263 10.1087/095315101753141356
10. Misconduct and journal peer review. Rennie D, Peer review in health sciences London: BMJ Books, Godless FJT, 1999 90 99
11. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R, Br Med J 1999 318 23 27 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
12. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. Khan K, Br Med J 2010 341 6425 10.1136/bmj.c6425
13. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. Groves T, Br Med J 2010 341 6424 10.1136/bmj.c6424
14. The ups and downs of peer review. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, et al. Adv Physiol Educ 2007 31 145 152 10.1152/advan.00104.2006 17562902
15. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N, J Am Med Assoc 1998 280 234 237 10.1001/jama.280.3.234
16. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML, Rennie D, J Am Med Assoc 1998 280 243 245 10.1001/jama.280.3. 243
17. Language bias discredits the peer-review system. Herrera AJ, Nature 1999 397 467 10028961
18. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F, JAMA 2002 287 2786 2790 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786 12038912
19. Ware M, Monkman M, Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community an international study. Publishing Research Consortium 2008 Retrieved from [ http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm ]
20. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). Eysenbach G, J Med Internet Res 2004 6 3 34 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 15471760
21. Translation of the scientific method-Peer review. Scarfe WC, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010 109 485 487 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010. 02.001 20176497
22. Peer review 1993. Horton R, Lancet 1993 342 733 8103831
23. The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review. Overbeke J, Peer review in health sciences London: BMJ Books, Godless FJT, 1999 32 44
24. Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Pulverer B, Nature 2010 468 29 31 10.1038/468029a 21048742
25. Naming peer reviewers in JRSM. Abbasi K, J R Soc Med 2009 102 399 10.1258/jrsm.2009.09k057
26. International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Kavvoura FK, Tatsioni A, Evangelou E, Kouri I, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Liberopoulos G, BMC Med 2007 5 30 10.1186/1741-7015-5-30 17961208
27. Publications in ISI-indexed public health journals from mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan during 1999-2008. Zheng ML, Yang LL, Shen Y, Shu Q, Med Sci Mon 2011 17 R21 SR27 10.12659/MSM.881832
28. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Poschl U, Front Comput Neurosci 2012 6 33 22783183