Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany.
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Aug;197(8):667-673. doi: 10.1007/s00066-020-01729-2. Epub 2020 Dec 18.
To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology.
In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform "eSurveyCreator". The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance.
A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal's articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses.
The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.
评估德语国家的审稿行为，以便为提高放射肿瘤学领域审稿活动的吸引力提供建议。
2019 年 11 月，年轻的德国放射肿瘤学会（jDEGRO）工作组使用在线平台“eSurveyCreator”进行了一项调查。问卷包括 29 个项目，考察了影响审稿动机和表现的广泛因素。
共收到 281 份回复。其中，有 154 份（55%）填写完整并纳入评估。影响放射肿瘤学领域期刊选择标准和同行评审表现的最重要因素是手稿的科学背景（85%）、期刊的声誉（59%）和高影响因子（IF；40%）。拒绝审稿邀请的原因包括文章的科学背景（60%）、预估工作量（55%）和 IF 低（27%）。70%的受访者更喜欢双盲审稿流程，而 16%的受访者更喜欢单盲，14%的受访者更喜欢公开审稿流程。如果提供补偿，59%的参与者会更频繁地审稿。迄今为止，只有 12%的参与者因审稿活动获得了补偿。作为审稿工作的补偿，55%的受访者更愿意免费获取期刊文章，45%的受访者希望折扣出版自己的稿件，40%的受访者希望减少会议费用，39%的受访者希望报销费用。
手稿的科学内容、期刊的声誉和高 IF 决定了放射肿瘤学领域审稿的吸引力。大多数参与者更喜欢双盲同行评审流程，如果有补偿，他们会进行更多的评审。免费获取期刊文章、出版费用或会议费用折扣或报销费用被认为可以提高审稿流程的吸引力。
