Jamorabo Daniel S, Deek Matthew P, Yom Sue S, Rehman Hasan, Zietman Anthony L, Motwani Sabin B, Briggs William M, Kim Sinae, Chang Daniel T, Jabbour Salma K
Department of Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, New York.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Oct 1;111(2):312-316. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.05.111. Epub 2021 May 24.
To evaluate reviewers' timeliness and review quality for the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) by sex and seniority.
The IJROBP editorial office provided data on 3962 individuals invited to review manuscripts from 2011 through 2014. We identified 1657 reviewers who had been invited to provide a review on at least 3 occasions during the study period and compared review timeliness and scoring between male and female reviewers. We confirmed the reviewers' sex after having unblinded their names based on our personal acquaintance with them and via an Internet search on their department websites. We then did a subset analysis of 124 US-based reviewers who had returned a "major revision" decision. We used the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to rate their reviews. We used odds ratios and t tests to look for differences in mean RQI scores and factors that might be associated with quality-in particular, Hirsch indices (h indices) and year of first certification.
Of the 1657 reviewers of interest, 1245 (75.1%) were men and 412 (24.9%) were women. We found no statistically significant differences between men and women in the time to respond to invitations. There were no statistically significant differences in timeliness or review reminders based on sex. Our subset analysis showed no difference in quality (RQI scores) based on the reviewers' sex, h index, or year of first certification.
Women and men render reviews of equal quality regardless of seniority and h index, yet women have been invited less frequently to review. This is likely because of the underrepresentation of women in radiation oncology. A more balanced academic population is needed to address this continuing disparity of women's representation in academic publishing.
按性别和资历评估《国际放射肿瘤学、生物学、物理学杂志》（IJROBP）审稿人的及时性和审稿质量。
IJROBP编辑部提供了2011年至2014年受邀审阅稿件的3962人的数据。我们确定了1657名在研究期间至少受邀审阅3次的审稿人，并比较了男性和女性审稿人的审稿及时性和评分。在根据我们对他们的个人了解以及通过在其部门网站上进行互联网搜索得知他们的姓名后，我们确认了审稿人的性别。然后，我们对124名做出“大修”决定的美国审稿人进行了子集分析。我们使用审稿质量工具（RQI）对他们的审稿进行评分。我们使用优势比和t检验来寻找平均RQI分数的差异以及可能与质量相关的因素，特别是赫希指数（h指数）和首次获得认证的年份。
在1657名感兴趣的审稿人中，1245名（75.1%）是男性，412名（24.9%）是女性。我们发现男性和女性在回复邀请的时间上没有统计学上的显著差异。基于性别的及时性或审稿提醒没有统计学上的显著差异。我们的子集分析表明，基于审稿人的性别、h指数或首次获得认证的年份，质量（RQI分数）没有差异。
无论资历和h指数如何，男性和女性的审稿质量相同，但女性受邀审稿的频率较低。这可能是因为女性在放射肿瘤学领域的代表性不足。需要一个更加平衡的学术群体来解决学术出版中女性代表性持续存在的这种差距。
