A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2017, Pages

  Almquist, Martin ^a   Von Allmen, Regula S ^b   Carradice, Dan ^c   Oosterling, Steven J ^d   McFarlane, Kirsty ^e   Wijnhoven, Bas ^f  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b CANTONAL HOSPITAL ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^d Infection and Immunology   (Netherlands)

^e John Wiley and Sons   (United Kingdom)

^f ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; LIKERT SCALE; PATENT; PEER REVIEW; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLICATION; SURGERY; SURGICAL SCIENCE; ADULT; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ONLINE SYSTEM;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 85021651825     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179031     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of internal medicine. 1994; 121(1):11-21. PMID: 8198342.
2. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996; 348(9040):1480-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7 PMID: 8942777.
3. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. PloS one. 2010; 5(6):e11344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011344 PMID: 20596540; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2893207.
4. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PloS one. 2011; 6(7):e22475. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022475 PMID: 21799867; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3143147.
5. Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovascular research. 2002; 56(3):339-46. PMID: 12445872.
6. Ceci SJ, Peters DP. Peer review-a study of reliability. Change. 1982; 14(6):44-8. PMID: 10259866.
7. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011; 108(8):3157-62. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108 PMID: 21300892; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3044353.
8. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of internal medicine. 2010; 170(21):1934-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406 PMID: 21098355.
9. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. The Medical journal of Australia. 2006; 184(12):621-6. PMID: 16803442.
10. Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. Jama. 1998; 280(3):246-7. PMID: 9676670.
11. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. Jama. 2002; 287(21):2825-8. PMID: 12038924.
12. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997; 387(6631):341-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0 PMID: 9163412.
13. Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS. Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 2007; 89(5):1010-8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01152 PMID: 17473138.
14. BBC. Profile: Hwang Woo-suk. http://newsbbccouk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554704stm [Internet]. 2009.
15. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013; 342(6154):60-5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60 PMID: 24092725.
16. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998; 351 (9103):637-41. PMID: 9500320.
17. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. Jama. 1998; 280(3):237-40. PMID: 9676667.
18. Campanario JM. Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations. Science Communication. 1995; 16(3):304-25.
19. Sense about Science. Peer Review Survey. http://wwwsenseaboutscienceorg/data/files/Peer-Review/Peer-Review-Survey-Final-3pdf [Internet]. 2009.
20. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. Bmj. 1999; 318(7175):4-5. PMID: 9872861; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1114535.
21. BJS. Instruction to Authors http://www.bjs.co.uk/view/instructionsToAuthors.html [accessed on 25th December 2015].
22. SurveyMonkey. https://de.surveymonkey.com/user/sign-in: Copyright 1999-2015 SurveyMonkey; [accessed 25th December 2015].
23. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. Bmj. 1999; 318(7175):23-7. PMID: 9872878; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC27670.
24. Bernstein J. Free for service: The inadequate incentives for quality peer review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(10):3093-4; discussion 4-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z PMID: 23925527; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3773123.
25. Hauser M, Fehr E. An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biol. 2007; 5(4):e107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107 PMID: 17439298; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1852148.
26. Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr. 2013; 11(1):274-84. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.109347 PMID: 23678247; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3653227.
27. Cantor M, Gero S. The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers. R Soc Open Sci. 2015; 2 (2):140540. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140540 PMID: 26064609; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4448813.
28. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. Jama. 1998; 280(3):234-7. PMID: 9676666.