Vinther Siri, Nielsen Ole Haagen, Rosenberg Jacob, Keiding Niels, Schroeder Torben V
Gastroenterologisk Afdeling, Herlev Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Dan Med J. 2012 Aug;59(8):A4479.
Research into the peer review process has previously been conducted in English-language journals. This study deals with a Danish general medical journal with a relatively small pool of both reviewers and readers. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable and anonymous reviewers, and further to characterize authors' and reviewers' attitudes towards different peer review systems.
The study was conducted as a blinded, randomised controlled trial. Each manuscript was reviewed by an identifiable and an anonymous reviewer. Review quality was subsequently assessed by two blinded editors, using the validated Review Quality Instrument. Reviewers' and authors' attitudes towards different peer review systems were characterized using questionnaires.
The study included 364 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference in quality between anonymous and identifiable reviewers' evaluations. 55% of the authors preferred the evaluation produced by the identifiable reviewer (p < 0.05). 26% of the identifiable reviewers found it unpleasant that authors knew their identities; 43% of the anonymous reviewers found it reassuring that authors did not know their identities. Regarding reviewers' preferences for different peer review systems, 38% preferred a double-blinded, 34% preferred a single-blinded and 28% preferred an open system. For authors, the corresponding proportions were 43%, 19% and 37%.
Implementing open peer review will not affect review quality, but lack of anonymity may cause reviewers, already limited in number, to decline when asked to review. Even though this would be a serious implication for a national journal like the Ugeskrift for Læger, the implementation of an open system should be discussed.
not relevant.
not relevant.
此前已有针对英文期刊同行评审过程的研究。本研究聚焦于一本丹麦普通医学期刊，该期刊的审稿人和读者群体相对较小。本研究旨在比较可识别审稿人和匿名审稿人所给出评审意见的质量，并进一步描述作者和审稿人对不同同行评审系统的态度。
本研究采用双盲随机对照试验。每篇稿件分别由一位可识别审稿人和一位匿名审稿人进行评审。随后，两位盲态编辑使用经过验证的评审质量工具对评审质量进行评估。通过问卷调查来描述审稿人和作者对不同同行评审系统的态度。
该研究共纳入364份评审意见。匿名审稿人和可识别审稿人的评审质量在统计学上无显著差异。55%的作者更倾向于可识别审稿人给出的评审意见（p < 0.05）。26%的可识别审稿人认为作者知晓其身份会令其感到不愉快；43%的匿名审稿人则认为作者不知晓其身份会让他们感到安心。关于审稿人对不同同行评审系统的偏好，38%倾向于双盲系统，34%倾向于单盲系统，28%倾向于开放系统。对于作者而言，相应比例分别为43%、19%和37%。
实施开放同行评审不会影响评审质量，但缺乏匿名性可能导致数量本就有限的审稿人在收到评审邀请时拒绝参与。尽管这对于像《Ugeskrift for Læger》这样的国家级期刊来说是一个严重问题，但仍应讨论开放系统的实施。
不相关。
不相关。
