Snell Linda, Spencer John
Centre for Medical Education and Division of General Internal Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Med Educ. 2005 Jan;39(1):90-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x.
To explore the review process from the reviewers' perspective, including perceptions of the time taken to carry out a review, barriers to and facilitators of the review process, benefits of reviewing, opinions about blinded versus transparent reviews, how the process of reviewing might be made easier, and to assess reviewers' experience of, and training in, the peer review process.
Reviewers for Medical Education invited to review over a 5-month period between 1st June and 31st October 2002 (n = 221).
Postal questionnaire accompanying a request to review a manuscript.
The overall response rate was 64.7% (the response rate of those completing and returning a manuscript review and a questionnaire was 87%); 30% were first-time reviewers for Medical Education, although the majority (87%) reviewed for other journals. The average time spent on the current review was just over 3 hours (184.3 minutes, median 162 minutes, range 30-810 minutes), which was stated to be about the same time as usual for the majority. Only 14% of respondents had received formal training in reviewing, although 66% said they would like such training. A total of 79.5% said they would have liked to seek a colleague's opinion, and 90% wished to receive other reviewers' comments. A wide range of problems with the review process were encountered, and the main way in which it was felt it could be made easier was to make the process electronic. Nearly three quarters of respondents said they would be happy to sign their reviews. Acting as a reviewer was seen as a professional responsibility and as an opportunity for learning.
This study provides useful insights into the process of review from the reviewer's perspective. Reviewers spend a substantial amount of time on each paper. Many referees feel their reviews would benefit if they had formal training in the review process, received feedback on their reviews, or were able to ask colleagues for opinions on the paper being reviewed. Most reviewers would be willing to sign their reviews and feel that the process should be transparent. These results may help inform discussions about how to better prepare peer reviewers for their job.
从审稿人的角度探讨审稿过程，包括对完成审稿所需时间的看法、审稿过程中的障碍和促进因素、审稿的益处、对盲审与透明审稿的看法、如何使审稿过程更简便，以及评估审稿人在同行评审过程中的经验和培训情况。
受邀在2002年6月1日至10月31日的5个月期间进行审稿的《医学教育》审稿人（n = 221）。
随附稿件评审请求的邮政调查问卷。
总体回复率为64.7%（完成并返还稿件评审和问卷的回复率为87%）；30%是《医学教育》的首次审稿人，尽管大多数（87%）为其他期刊审稿。当前审稿的平均用时略超过3小时（184.3分钟，中位数162分钟，范围30 - 810分钟），多数人表示这与平时用时大致相同。只有14%的受访者接受过审稿方面的正式培训，尽管66%的人表示希望接受此类培训。共有79.5%的人表示希望征求同事的意见，90%的人希望收到其他审稿人的评论。在审稿过程中遇到了各种各样的问题，大家认为使其更简便的主要方式是实现电子化。近四分之三的受访者表示愿意在审稿意见上署名。担任审稿人被视为一种职业责任和学习机会。
本研究从审稿人的角度为审稿过程提供了有益的见解。审稿人在每篇论文上花费大量时间。许多审稿人认为，如果他们接受审稿过程的正式培训、收到对其审稿意见的反馈，或者能够就正在评审的论文征求同事的意见，他们的审稿工作会更有成效。大多数审稿人愿意在审稿意见上署名，并认为审稿过程应该透明。这些结果可能有助于为如何更好地让同行审稿人做好工作的讨论提供参考。
