Le Sueur Helen, Dagliati Arianna, Buchan Iain, Whetton Anthony D, Martin Glen P, Dornan Tim, Geifman Nophar
Centre for Health Informatics, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
The Manchester Molecular Pathology Innovation Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Med Teach. 2020 Sep;42(9):1012-1018. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1774527. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors unrelated to research quality that may influence peer review reports, and assessed the possibility that sub-types of reviewers exist. Our findings could potentially improve the peer review process. We evaluated the harshness, constructiveness and positiveness in 596 reviews from journals with open peer review, plus 46 reviews from colleagues' anonymously reviewed manuscripts. We considered possible influencing factors, such as number of authors and seasonal trends, on the content of the review. Finally, using machine-learning we identified latent types of reviewer with differing characteristics. Reviews provided during a northern-hemisphere winter were significantly harsher, suggesting a seasonal effect on language. Reviews for articles in journals with an open peer review policy were significantly less harsh than those with an anonymous review process. Further, we identified three types of reviewers: nurturing, begrudged, and blasé. Nurturing reviews were in a minority and our findings suggest that more widespread open peer reviewing could improve the educational value of peer review, increase the constructive criticism that encourages researchers, and reduce pride and prejudice in editorial processes.
同行评议是指导医学研究人员教育与实践的有力工具，但可能会出现匿名评审员的偏见性批评。我们探究了与研究质量无关但可能影响同行评议报告的因素，并评估了存在不同类型评审员的可能性。我们的研究结果可能会改进同行评议过程。我们评估了来自实行开放同行评议期刊的596份评议以及同事匿名评审稿件的46份评议中的严苛程度、建设性和积极性。我们考虑了诸如作者数量和季节趋势等可能影响评议内容的因素。最后，我们使用机器学习识别出了具有不同特征的潜在评审员类型。北半球冬季期间提供的评议明显更严苛，这表明存在对语言的季节影响。对实行开放同行评议政策期刊上文章的评议明显不如匿名评审过程的评议严苛。此外，我们识别出了三种类型的评审员：扶持型、嫉妒型和冷漠型。扶持型评议占少数，我们的研究结果表明，更广泛地实行开放同行评议可以提高同行评议的教育价值，增加鼓励研究人员的建设性批评，并减少编辑过程中的傲慢与偏见。
