Background
Methods
Questionnaire development
Subjects
Administration
Data analysis
Results
Geographical distribution and demographics
Basic scientists | Clinicians | Clinician-scientists | Chi-squared/t value | P value | Respondents with English as their first language | Respondents with English as their second language | Chi-squared/t value/Z value | P value | All | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n = 560) | (n =516) | (n = 264) | (n = 611) | (n = 729) | (n = 1340) | |||||
Gender:
| ||||||||||
Men | 354 (63.2%) | 380 (73.6%) | 208 (78.8%) | 25.3 | <0.001 | 409 (66.9%) | 533 (73.1%) | 6.1 | 0.01* | 942 (70.3%) |
Women | 206 (36.8%) | 136 (26.4%) | 56 (21.2%) | 202 (33.1%) | 196 (26.9%) | 398 (29.7%) | ||||
Location
| ||||||||||
Africa | 2 (14.3%) | 5 (35.7%) | 7 (50%) | 54.8 | <0.001 | 6 (42.9%) | 8 (57.1%) | 416.8 | <0.001** | 14 (1.0%) |
America (North) | 233 (45.6%) | 201 (39.3%) | 77 (15.1%) | 365 (71.4%) | 146 (28.6%) | 511 (38.1%) | ||||
America (South) | 4 (20.0%) | 12 (60.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (100%) | 20 (1.5%) | ||||
Asia (Central/ Middle East) | 15 (20.3%) | 46 (62.2%) | 13 (17.6%) | 5 (6.8%) | 69 (93.2%) | 74 (5.5%) | ||||
Asia (North/East) | 33 (34.4%) | 36 (37.5%) | 27 (28.1%) | 5 (5.2%) | 91 (94.8%) | 96 (7.2%) | ||||
Australia and New Zealand | 52 (47.7%) | 42 (38.5%) | 15 (13.8%) | 95 (87.2%) | 14 (12.8%) | 109 (8.1%) | ||||
Europe | 221 (42.8%) | 174 (33.7%) | 121 (23.4%) | 135 (26.2%) | 381 (73.8%) | 516 (38.5%) | ||||
Mean age (Mean ± SD)
| 49.9 ± 11.4 | 52.6 ± 10.4 | 52.2 ± 11.2 | 8.8 | <0.001 | 51.9 ± 11.6 | 50.9 ± 10.6 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 51.4 ± 11.1 |
Median number of papers successfully published in peered- review journals
| 50 | 50 | 61 | 9.8 | 0.007 | 50 | 50 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 50 |
(Median, 95% CI)
| (45 – 55) | (45 – 60) | (50 – 75) | (50 – 60) | (50 – 59) | (95% CI: 50 – 56) | ||||
Mean number of years of experience in medical research and publications (Mean ± SD)
| 20.3 ± 10.6 | 20.3 ± 10.8 | 22.4 ± 11.8 | 3.9 | 0.02 | 21.1 ± 11.6 | 20.4 ± 10.4 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 20.7 ± 11 |
Positive and negative experiences of journal peer review systems
How frequent did each of the following situations happen to the respondents during journal peer review?* | Very rare/infrequent | Sometimes | Frequent/all the time |
---|---|---|---|
N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
The duration of review period is longer than 6 months. | 815 (60.8) | 374 (27.9) | 151 (11.3) |
The duration of review is longer than a year. | 1231 (91.9) | 88 (6.6) | 21 (1.6) |
Encountering personal attacks in reviewers’ comments. | 1078 (80.4) | 235 (17.5) | 27 (2.0) |
Breach of confidentially of articles’ information by reviewers. | 1200 (89.6) | 126 (9.4) | 14 (1.0) |
Unauthorised use of articles’ information (e.g. authors’ ideas, data or methods) by reviewers after rejection of articles. | 1149 (85.7) | 174 (13.0) | 17 (1.3) |
Imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers. | 906 (67.6) | 338 (25.2) | 96 (7.2) |
How much do you agree with the following statements?* | Strongly disagree/disagree n (%) | Neutral n (%) | Strongly agree/agree n (%) |
---|---|---|---|
I) Positive views of the review process
| |||
Biomedical journal peer review is fair. | 304 (22.7) | 387 (28.9) | 649 (48.4) |
Biomedical journal peer review is transparent. | 610 (45.5) | 393 (29.3) | 337 (25.1) |
Biomedical journal peer review is scientific. | 304 (22.) | 399 (29.8) | 637 (47.5) |
Authors should remain anonymous. | 296 (22.1) | 264 (19.7) | 780 (58.2) |
Reviewers should remain anonymous. | 271 (20.2) | 204 (15.2) | 865 (64.4) |
Reviewers are competent in general. | 306 (22.8) | 503 (37.5) | 531 (39.6) |
II) Conflict of interest (COI)
| |||
Reviewers are not required to declare COI. | 1125 (84.0) | 100 (7.5) | 115 (8.6) |
The journal review process ensures my article to be free from interference of competitors and people with COI. | 659 (49.2) | 426 (31.8) | 255 (19.0) |
III) Communication
| |||
After receiving an article, the editors should give every article a fair chance by sending to peer review and avoiding personal bias. | 244 (18.2) | 506 (37.8) | 590 (44.0%) |
After receiving reviewers’ feedbacks, editors should screen for unfair reviewers’ comments. | 285 (21.3) | 446 (33.3) | 609 (45.4) |
Every biomedical journal should provide an appeal system for authors when their articles are unfairly rejected. | 198 (14.8) | 235 (17.5) | 907 (67.7) |
Comparisons of responses between native and non-native English-speaking respondents
English as the first language | English as the second language | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rare/infrequent | Sometimes | Frequent/all the time | Rare/infrequent | Sometimes | Frequent/all the time | Chi squared value | p value | |
N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |||
Undesirable experiences
| ||||||||
Personal attacks | 512 (83.8) | 93 (15.2) | 6 (1.0) | 566 (77.7) | 142 (19.5) | 21 (2.9) | ||
Breach of confidentiality | 552 (90.4) | 55 (9.0) | 4 (0.7) | 648 (88.8) | 71 (9.7) | 10 (1.3) | ||
Unauthorised use of articles’ information after rejection of articles | 528 (86.4) | 75 (12.3) | 8 (1.3) | 621 (85.2) | 99 (13.6) | 9 (1.2) | ||
Imposition of unnecessary references | 435 (71.2) | 130 (21.3) | 46 (7.5) | 471 (64.6) | 208 (28.5) | 50 (6.8) | ||
Strongly disagree/Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Strongly agree/Agree
|
Strongly disagree/Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Strongly agree/Agree
|
Chi squared value
|
p value
| |
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
| |||
Journal peer review is:
| ||||||||
fair | 122 (19.9) | 169 (27.7) | 320 (52.3) | 182 (25.0) | 218 (29.9) | 329 (45.2) | 7.8 | 0.02* |
transparent | 276 (45.2) | 172 (28.2) | 163 (26.7) | 334 (45.8) | 221 (30.3) | 174 (23.8) | 1.6 | 0.5 |
scientific | 158 (25.8) | 184 (30.1) | 269 (44.0) | 146 (20.0) | 215 (29.5) | 368 (50.5) | 7.9 | 0.02* |
free from interference | 299 (48.9) | 184 (30.1) | 128 (21.0) | 360 (49.4) | 242 (33.2) | 127 (17.5) | 3.2 | 0.2 |
Editors should:
| ||||||||
give an article a fair hearing by sending to peer review and avoid personal bias | 109 (17.9) | 207 (33.9) | 295 (48.3) | 135 (18.5) | 299 (41.0) | 295 (40.5) | 9.2 | 0.01* |
screen for unfair comments | 113 (18.5) | 196 (32.1) | 302 (49.4) | 172 (23.6) | 250 (34.3) | 307 (42.1) | 8.5 | 0.01* |
Reviewers
| ||||||||
Anonymity of reviewers | 125 (20.5) | 85 (13.9) | 401 (65.6) | 146 (20.0) | 119 (16.3) | 464 (63.7) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Not require to declare conflict of interest | 552 (90.4) | 25 (4.1) | 34 (5.6) | 573 (78.6) | 75 (10.3) | 81 (11.1) | 34.5 | <0.001** |
Competent in general | 153 (25.1) | 206 (33.7) | 252 (41.2) | 153 (21.0) | 297 (40.7) | 279 (38.3) | 7.5 | 0.02* |
Anonymity of authors
| 144 (23.6) | 119 (19.5) | 348 (56.9) | 152 (20.8) | 145 (19.9) | 432 (59.3) | 1.4 | 0.5 |
Appeal system in every journal
| 98 (16.0) | 90 (14.7) | 423 (69.3) | 100 (13.7) | 145 (19.9) | 484 (66.4) | 6.7 | 0.04* |
Comparison of responses among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician-scientists
Basic scientists | Clinicians | Clinicians scientists | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rare /infrequent | Sometimes | Frequent/all the time | Rare/infrequent | Sometimes | Frequent/all the time | Rare/infrequent | Sometimes | Frequent/all the time | p value | |
N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | ||
Undesirable experiences
| ||||||||||
Personal attacks
| 442 (78.9) | 100 (17.9) | 18 (3.2) | 439 (85.1) | 74 (14.3) | 3 (0.6) | 197 (74.6) | 61 (23.1) | 6 (2.3) | 0.001** |
Breach of confidentiality
| 499 (89.1) | 56 (10.0) | 5 (0.9) | 484 (93.8) | 28 (5.4) | 4 (0.8) | 217 (82.2) | 42 (15.9) | 5 (1.9) | <0.001** |
Unauthorised use of articles’ information after rejection of articles
| 485 (86.6) | 71 (12.7) | 4 (0.7) | 458 (88.8) | 50 (9.7) | 8 (1.6) | 206 (78.0) | 53 (20.1) | 5 (1.9) | 0.001** |
Imposition of unnecessary references
| 363 (64.8) | 154 (27.5) | 43 (7.7) | 389 (74.5) | 99 (19.2) | 28 (5.4) | 154 (58.3) | 85 (32.2) | 25 (9.5) | <0.001** |
Strongly disagree/Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Strongly agree/Agree
|
Strongly disagree/Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Strongly agree/Agree
|
Strongly disagree/Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Strongly agree/Agree
|
p value
| |
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
|
N (%)
| ||
Journal peer review is:
| ||||||||||
fair
| 137 (24.5) | 166 (29.6) | 257 (45.9) | 97 (18.1) | 137 (26.6) | 282 (54.7) | 70 (26.5) | 84 (31.8) | 110 (41.7) | 0.004** |
transparent
| 250 (44.6) | 176 (31.4) | 134 (23.9) | 225 (43.6) | 152 (29.5) | 139 (26.9) | 135 (51.1) | 65 (24.6) | 64 (24.2) | 0.2 |
scientific
| 117 (20.9) | 167 (29.8) | 276 (49.3) | 119 (23.1) | 152 (29.5) | 245 (47.5) | 68 (25.8) | 80 (30.3) | 116 (43.9) | 0.6 |
free from interference
| 283 (50.5) | 179 (32.0 | 98 (17.5) | 228 (44.2) | 167 (32.4) | 121 (23.4) | 148 (56.1) | 80 (30.3) | 36 (13.6) | 0.004** |
Anonymity of authors
| 138 (24.6) | 115 (20.5) | 307 (54.8) | 89 (17.2) | 99 (19.2) | 328 (63.6) | 69 (26.1) | 50 (18.9) | 145 (54.9) | 0.009** |
Appeal system in every journal
| 93 (16.6) | 100 (17.9) | 367 (65.5) | 74 (14.3) | 95 (18.4) | 347 (67.2) | 31 (11.7) | 40 (15.2) | 193 (73.1) | 0.2 |
Comparison of responses among different specialties
Factors associated with agreement that biomedical journal peer review is fair
Regression coefficient | Standard error | F change | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Demographics
| ||||
Age | −0.001 | 0.003 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
Gender (Female) | −0.1 | 0.05 | 4.9 | 0.03* |
English as first language | −0.05 | 0.06 | 0.7 | 0.4 |
Academic background
| ||||
Number of publications | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.2 | 0.7 |
Years of experience in biomedical research | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.07 | 0.8 |
Frequency of undesirable experiences encountered (Yes or No)
| ||||
Review times longer than one year | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
Personal attacks in reviewers’ comments | −0.1 | 0.03 | 9.9 | 0.002** |
Breach of confidentiality by reviewers | −0.022 | 0.04 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
Unauthorised use of articles’ information after rejection of articles | −0.022 | 0.03 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers | −0.06 | 0.03 | 4.4 | 0.04* |