IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179031.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Almquist
  • Regula S von Allmen
  • Dan Carradice
  • Steven J Oosterling
  • Kirsty McFarlane
  • Bas Wijnhoven

Abstract

Background: Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors’ and reviewers’ opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. Methods: In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. Results: The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Almquist & Regula S von Allmen & Dan Carradice & Steven J Oosterling & Kirsty McFarlane & Bas Wijnhoven, 2017. "A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179031
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179031
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179031&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qianshuo Liu & David Pérez-Castrillo & Inés Macho-Stadler & Albert Banal-Estañol, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    3. Patrícia Martinková & Dan Goldhaber & Elena Erosheva, 2018. "Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Amy Hinsley & William J Sutherland & Alison Johnston, 2017. "Men ask more questions than women at a scientific conference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. van Raan, A. F. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N., 2002. "Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 611-632, May.
    6. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2016. "Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 143-162, January.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8741 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Fengyuan Liu & Petter Holme & Matteo Chiesa & Bedoor AlShebli & Talal Rahwan, 2023. "Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 353-364, March.
    9. Marta Vohlídalová, 2021. "Early-Career Women Academics: Between Neoliberalism and Gender Conservatism," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(1), pages 27-43, March.
    10. Pat O’Connor & Gemma Irvine, 2020. "Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Karen L. Webber & Manuel González Canché, 2018. "Is There a Gendered Path to Tenure? A Multi-State Approach to Examine the Academic Trajectories of U.S. Doctoral Recipients in the Sciences," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(7), pages 897-932, November.
    12. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    13. Paula Mählck & Hanna Li Kusterer & Henry Montgomery, 2020. "What professors do in peer review: Interrogating assessment practices in the recruitment of professors in Sweden," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(6), pages 1361-1377, November.
    14. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    15. Clément Bosquet & Pierre‐Philippe Combes & Cecilia García‐Peñalosa, 2019. "Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1020-1053, July.
    16. Jouni Helin & Kristian Koerselman & Terhi Nokkala & Timo Tohmo & Jutta Viinikainen, 2019. "Equal Access to the Top? Measuring Selection into Finnish Academia," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 90-100.
    17. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Berlin) (ed.), 2007. "Die Zukunft sozialer Sicherheit," Schriften zu Wirtschaft und Soziales, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung e.V., Berlin, volume 2, number 2.
    18. Cadsby, C. Bram & Servátka, Maroš & Song, Fei, 2013. "How competitive are female professionals? A tale of identity conflict," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 284-303.
    19. Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas Augusto van der Velde & Magdalena Smyk, 2024. "Gender-neutral hiring of junior scholars," GRAPE Working Papers 94, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.
    20. Ilse Lindenlaub & Anja Prummer, 2014. "Gender, Social Networks And Performance," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1461, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    21. Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.