• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在一些期刊中,招募审稿人变得越来越困难:对生态学和进化领域六本期刊审稿人疲劳影响的一项测试。

Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution.

作者信息

Fox Charles W, Albert Arianne Y K, Vines Timothy H

机构信息

1Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091 USA.

2Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia V6H 3N1 Canada.

出版信息

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Mar 8;2:3. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x. eCollection 2017.

DOI:10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
PMID:29451533
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5803623/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal.

MAIN BODY

We examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003-2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals-the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.

摘要

背景

编辑们普遍反映,招募同行评审员变得越来越困难,原因是个人被要求评审的次数过于频繁,导致出现了评审疲劳。然而,支持这些观点的证据大多只是传闻。

正文

我们研究了个人对六种生态与进化领域期刊评审邀请的回应。在所研究的六种期刊中,有四种期刊在13年(2003 - 2015年)间,导致提交评审意见的邀请比例一直在稳步下降,累积影响相当显著(从2003年56%的评审邀请能收到评审意见,平均下降到2015年的仅37%)。受邀者同意评审的可能性会随着他们一年中收到的邀请数量显著下降。然而,在这13年里,发送给潜在评审员的平均邀请数量以及每年被多次邀请的个人比例变化不大,尽管这些期刊发送的评审邀请总数大幅增加——评审员群体已随着评审请求的增加而相应扩大。

结论

在此研究的六种期刊中,有四种期刊导致提交评审意见的邀请比例一直在稳步下降,但评审疲劳不太可能是这种下降的主要原因。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/fe6a9e50b981/41073_2017_27_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/e3e21e84f55f/41073_2017_27_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/9eaa0a0a6aa3/41073_2017_27_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/fe6a9e50b981/41073_2017_27_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/e3e21e84f55f/41073_2017_27_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/9eaa0a0a6aa3/41073_2017_27_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d9/5803623/fe6a9e50b981/41073_2017_27_Fig3_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution.在一些期刊中,招募审稿人变得越来越困难:对生态学和进化领域六本期刊审稿人疲劳影响的一项测试。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Mar 8;2:3. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x. eCollection 2017.
2
"It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers"-myths and facts about peer review.“寻找审稿人越来越难了”-同行评审的误区与真相。
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2024 Jan;210(1):1-5. doi: 10.1007/s00359-023-01642-w. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
3
Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals.为同行评审争取审稿人是否变得越来越难?基于五本生态学期刊数据的一项测试。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 4;1:14. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7. eCollection 2016.
4
Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.《美国放射学杂志》审稿人选择中的字母顺序偏见。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Dec;191(6):W213-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3737.
5
Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals.六种渔业科学期刊的同行评审趋势
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024 Jun 25;9(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s41073-024-00146-8.
6
The privilege and burden of peer review.同行评审的特权与负担。
Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2016 Jan;22(1):147-50. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000057. Epub 2015 Jun 22.
7
Shared burden is always lighter - Peer-review performance in an ophthalmological journal 2010-2020.共同的负担总是更轻——2010-2020 年眼科期刊的同行评议表现。
Acta Ophthalmol. 2022 Aug;100(5):559-563. doi: 10.1111/aos.15033. Epub 2021 Oct 5.
8
Gender parity and homophily in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence editorial process.药物和酒精依赖编辑过程中的性别均等和同质性。
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Jul 1;236:109493. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109493. Epub 2022 May 13.
9
Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.编辑对同行评审员的要求:一项研究与一项提议。
Prev Med. 1996 Mar-Apr;25(2):102-4. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1996.0035.
10
Peer reviewer survey for .关于……的同行评审调查
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2022 Oct 26;36(1):132-134. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2022.2130040. eCollection 2023.

引用本文的文献

1
On improving the sustainability of peer review.论提高同行评审的可持续性
PLoS Biol. 2025 Mar 25;23(3):e3003127. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003127. eCollection 2025 Mar.
2
Behind the scenes: exploring neurological journal editors' work habits, decisions, and potential sources of conflict of interest.幕后:探究神经学杂志编辑的工作习惯、决策以及潜在的利益冲突来源。
J Neurol. 2024 Dec 12;272(1):20. doi: 10.1007/s00415-024-12780-9.
3
Publishing during a Pandemic: Analyzing Recent Publication Times in Hand Surgery.疫情期间的出版情况:手部外科近期出版时间分析

本文引用的文献

1
Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals.为同行评审争取审稿人是否变得越来越难?基于五本生态学期刊数据的一项测试。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 4;1:14. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7. eCollection 2016.
2
The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.生物医学文献中期刊同行评审的全球负担:集体事业中的严重不平衡
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):e0166387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387. eCollection 2016.
3
The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Nov 12;12(11):e6303. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006303. eCollection 2024 Nov.
4
Questionnaire survey for the International Journal of Legal Medicine on the occassion of the 26th triennal meeting of the International Academy of Legal Medicine.在国际法医学学会第26届三年一次会议之际,为《国际法医学杂志》开展的问卷调查。
Int J Legal Med. 2025 Jan;139(1):285-291. doi: 10.1007/s00414-024-03310-3. Epub 2024 Aug 28.
5
'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.“共识科学”阻碍了科学创造力和进步:一种替代生物医学研究资助的简单方法。
F1000Res. 2024 Feb 21;11:961. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.124082.3. eCollection 2022.
6
Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.在芬兰医学杂志从单盲同行评审改为双盲同行评审后,同行评审人员的评审意愿、他们的建议及评审质量。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Oct 24;8(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00140-6.
7
"It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers"-myths and facts about peer review.“寻找审稿人越来越难了”-同行评审的误区与真相。
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2024 Jan;210(1):1-5. doi: 10.1007/s00359-023-01642-w. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
8
Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.新冠疫情前后全科医学研究期刊的同行评审
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jan 3;6(1):e2253296. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53296.
9
Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals.科技与社会研究(STS)期刊的编辑工作与同行评审经济
Sci Technol Human Values. 2022 Jul;47(4):670-697. doi: 10.1177/01622439211068798. Epub 2021 Dec 30.
10
Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia.提高学术界的公平性、多样性和包容性。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2022 Jul 4;7(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s41073-022-00123-z.
稿件标题结构与成功率之间的关系:一份生态学期刊的编辑决策与引用表现
Ecol Evol. 2015 May;5(10):1970-80. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1480. Epub 2015 Apr 16.
4
Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010.2003 - 2010年期间,针对英国生态学会的四种期刊,对个别研究人员同行评审活动的不平衡情况进行了量化。
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 21;9(3):e92896. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092896. eCollection 2014.
5
No crisis in supply of peer reviewers.同行评审员供应不存在危机。
Nature. 2010 Dec 23;468(7327):1041. doi: 10.1038/4681041a.
6
The tragedy of the reviewer commons.同行评议的悲剧。
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):2-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01276.x.