Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Medstar Washington Hospital Center/Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC; Obstetrics & Gynecology Editorial Offices, Washington, DC; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;129(2):243-248. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001852.
To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation.
We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression.
There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]).
Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.
评估在妇产科领域，同行评审的质量和审稿人推荐是否因审稿人专业领域的不同而有所差异，并确定经验在审稿人推荐中的作用。
我们对 2010 年 1 月至 2014 年 12 月期间发表在《妇产科》杂志上的评论进行了回顾性队列研究。根据每位审稿人选择的分类术语确定专业领域，包括所有主要的妇产科专业、普通妇产科和非妇产科类别。使用期刊编辑的 5 分李克特量表，对各专业领域的评审质量（评分）和“拒绝”审稿人推荐进行比较，采用 χ2、方差分析和多变量逻辑回归。
共有 1889 名审稿人提交了 20027 条评论。从事计划生育专业的审稿人提供的同行评审质量高于仅从事妇科、生殖内分泌与不孕、妇科肿瘤和普通妇产科专业的审稿人（分别为 3.61±0.75 分比 3.44±0.78 分、3.42±0.72 分、3.35±0.75 分和 3.32±0.81 分，P<.05）。仅有妇科专业背景的审稿人比非妇产科专业背景的审稿人更倾向于推荐拒绝（57.7%比 38.7%，P<.05）。编委会成员比新审稿人更倾向于推荐拒绝（68.0%比 41.5%，P<.05）。调整后的推荐拒绝的优势比与生殖内分泌、女性盆底医学与重建外科和仅有妇科专业背景的审稿人相关（调整后的优势比[OR]为 1.23[1.07-1.41]、1.21[1.05-1.39]和 1.11[1.02-1.20]）。与审稿人最低五分位数（1-7）相比，完成审稿量最高五分位数（大于 195）的审稿人推荐拒绝的比例也有所增加（调整后的 OR 为 2.85[2.60-3.12]）。
同行评审质量因妇产科专业领域而异。妇产科专业领域和审稿人经验对稿件拒绝推荐有影响。审稿人分配对维持严格的稿件选择过程至关重要。
