A Pilot Survey of Authors’ Experiences with Poor Peer Review Practices

Abstract

Objectives To develop a typology of poor peer review practices (PPRP) and assess researchers’ experiences with PPRP. Design Exploratory analysis of cross-sectional internet-based survey. Participants We solicited 500 researchers funded by the NIH extramural grants in 2018 by direct email and 600 bioethicists on a bioethics discussion forum (mcw.bioethics). 112 respondents (~10%) completed the survey. Primary and Secondary Outcomes Measures The total number of reported PPRP and a five-point scale to assess participants’ views about the effect of PPRP on their ability to disseminate their research. Results The mean number of PPRP experienced per author was 12.5 of 28 (44.6%; range 0–27; 95% CI = 11.2–13.8), with fourteen PPRP experienced by 50% or more of the sample. The number of reported PPRP increased with age (P = 0.01) and total number of published peer-reviewed manuscripts (P = 0.02). Authors belonging to underrepresented groups reported more PPRP compared to represented groups (P = 0.05). Most authors viewed the peer review process favorably, with 67% (74/111) of authors responding “sometimes” or “often” to having received insightful peer reviews that improved the quality of their final papers. However, a total of 57% (63/111) of respondents admitted to previously abandoning a manuscript after receiving what they perceived to be unfair peer reviews. Conclusions This study introduces a practical list of PPRP and a framework for a typology of PPRP, which could serve as an educational tool for editors and reviewers and further our understanding of poor peer review practices. Future researchers will expand authors’ experiences with constructive or helpful peer review practices. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY The sample consisted primarily of experienced researchers from diverse fields, which aided in capturing a wide variety of poor peer review examples. This survey included a core set of 28 poor peer review practices and allowed respondents to add other practices they had experienced, which helped to generate an extensive list of poor peer review practices. The generalizability of the prevalence of poor review types and the degree of negative impact on authors should be interpreted with caution due to the low response rate and the potential for response bias.

Ähnliche Arbeiten