Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):401-406.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003. Epub 2015 Oct 27.
Academic medical researchers are judged by how often their publications are cited in the literature. When serving as journal reviewers, they may be more favorably disposed to manuscripts that cite their work. We investigate whether manuscripts that contain a citation to the reviewer's work receive higher evaluations than those that do not and whether peer reviewers encourage authors to cite that reviewer's work.
We analyzed all research manuscripts submitted in 2012 to Annals of Emergency Medicine to determine whether they contained citations to each reviewer's work. To determine whether citation affected reviewer scores, we obtained each reviewer's score of the manuscript's overall desirability (1=worst to 5=best) and used descriptive statistics and regression modeling to compare scores of cited and noncited reviewers. We also enumerated how often reviewers suggested that authors add citations to the reviewer's work or other work.
There were 395 manuscripts and 999 corresponding reviews with an manuscript desirability score. The 83 reviews by cited reviewers (8.3%) had a mean score of 2.8 (SD 1.4); the 916 reviews by noncited reviewers (91.7%), 2.5 (1.2; Δ=0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 0.6). The mean score in the 117 reviews of the noncited reviewers of the 57 manuscripts that had both cited and noncited reviewers was 2.9 (SD 1.2) compared with 2.9 (SD 1.1) for the 68 reviews by cited reviewers (Δ=0; 95% CI -0.3 to 0.4). In the final ordinal regression model, the unadjusted OR for the manuscript desirability score was 1.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.7); when adjusting for the manuscripts' mean desirability score, it was 1.4 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.2), demonstrating that manuscript quality was a confounder. Authors were asked to add a citation to the reviewer's work in 28 reviews (3%) but to others' work in 98 (10%).
In a leading specialty journal, cited reviewers gave higher scores than noncited reviewers. However, this was likely due to their being assigned higher-quality manuscripts and not because they were cited in the manuscript. Reviewer requests that their work be cited were rare.
学术医学研究人员的评判标准是其出版物在文献中被引用的频率。当担任期刊审稿人时，他们可能更倾向于引用自己工作的稿件。我们调查了含有审稿人工作引文的稿件是否比没有引文的稿件获得更高的评价，以及同行审稿人是否鼓励作者引用该审稿人的工作。
我们分析了 2012 年提交给《急诊医学年鉴》的所有研究手稿，以确定它们是否包含对每位审稿人的工作的引用。为了确定引用是否影响审稿人的评分，我们获得了每位审稿人对稿件整体可取性的评分（1=最差，5=最佳），并使用描述性统计和回归建模来比较引用和未引用审稿人的评分。我们还列举了审稿人建议作者添加对审稿人工作或其他工作的引述的频率。
共有 395 篇手稿和 999 篇相应的评论，有手稿期望评分。83 篇引用审稿人（8.3%）的评论平均得分为 2.8（SD 1.4）；916 篇非引用审稿人（91.7%）的评论平均得分为 2.5（1.2；Δ=0.3；95%置信区间[CI]0 至 0.6）。在有引用和非引用审稿人的 57 篇手稿中，117 篇非引用审稿人的评论平均得分为 2.9（SD 1.2），而 68 篇引用审稿人的评论平均得分为 2.9（SD 1.1）（Δ=0；95%CI -0.3 至 0.4）。在最终的有序回归模型中，稿件期望评分的未调整比值比（OR）为 1.6（95%CI 1.0 至 2.7）；调整稿件平均期望评分后，比值比为 1.4（95%CI 0.8 至 2.2），表明稿件质量是混杂因素。作者被要求在 28 篇评论（3%）中添加审稿人的工作引文，但在 98 篇评论（10%）中添加其他人的工作引文。
在一家领先的专业期刊中，引用审稿人的评分高于非引用审稿人。然而，这可能是由于他们被分配了更高质量的稿件，而不是因为他们的工作在稿件中被引用。审稿人要求引用他们的工作的请求很少。
