Document Detail

Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20976226     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Ratings in journal peer review can be affected by sources of bias. The bias variable investigated here was the information on whether authors had suggested a possible reviewer for their manuscript, and whether the editor had taken up that suggestion or had chosen a reviewer that had not been suggested by the authors. Studies have shown that author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers do.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Reviewers' ratings on three evaluation criteria and the reviewers' final publication recommendations were available for 552 manuscripts (in total 1145 reviews) that were submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an interactive open access journal using public peer review (authors' and reviewers' comments are publicly exchanged). Public peer review is supposed to bring a new openness to the reviewing process that will enhance its objectivity. In the statistical analysis the quality of a manuscript was controlled for to prevent favorable reviewers' ratings from being attributable to quality instead of to the bias variable.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results agree with those from other studies that editor-suggested reviewers rated manuscripts between 30% and 42% less favorably than author-suggested reviewers. Against this backdrop journal editors should consider either doing without the use of author-suggested reviewers or, if they are used, bringing in more than one editor-suggested reviewer for the review process (so that the review by author-suggested reviewers can be put in perspective).
Lutz Bornmann; Hans-Dieter Daniel
Related Documents :
11653246 - Killing, letting die and the bare difference argument.
20522396 - Optimizing radiology peer review: a mathematical model for selecting future cases based...
17377096 - Aestiva ventilation mode selector switch failures.
7645496 - The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
15946086 - Immune-mediated hemolysis in a postoperative patient case report: anti-u and differenti...
7034526 - Blood tests showing nonpaternity-conclusive or rebuttable evidence? the chaplin case re...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2010-10-14
Journal Detail:
Title:  PloS one     Volume:  5     ISSN:  1932-6203     ISO Abbreviation:  PLoS ONE     Publication Date:  2010  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-10-26     Completed Date:  2011-03-07     Revised Date:  2013-07-03    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101285081     Medline TA:  PLoS One     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e13345     Citation Subset:  IM    
Office of Research Analysis and Foresight, Max Planck Society, Munich, Germany.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Database Management Systems
Peer Review, Research*
Publication Bias*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Deconvoluting post-transplant immunity: cell subset-specific mapping reveals pathways for activation...
Next Document:  dATP/ATP, a multifunctional nucleotide, stimulates bacterial cell lysis, extracellular DNA release a...