Moirano Giovenale, Listorti Elisabetta, Asta Federica, Macciotta Alessandra, Murtas Rossella, Ottone Marta, Petri Davide, Renzi Matteo
Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcellona (Spagna).
Cergas, Università Bocconi, Milano;
Epidemiol Prev. 2024 Mar-Apr;48(2):149-157. doi: 10.19191/EP24.2.A622.042.
the peer-review process, which is the foundation of modern scientific production, represents one of its essential elements. However, despite numerous benefits, it presents several critical issues.
to collect the opinions of a group of researchers from the epidemiological scientific community on peer-review processes.
cross-sectional study using a questionnaire evaluation.
a 29-question survey was administered to 516 healthcare professionals through the SurveyMonkey platform. The questions focused on the individual characteristics of the respondents and their perceived satisfaction with some characteristics of the review process as well as their propensity of changing some aspects of it. In addition, three open-ended questions were included, allowing respondents to provide comments on the role that reviewers and the review process should play. Descriptive statistics were produced in terms of absolute frequencies and percentages for the information collected through the questionnaire. Secondly, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the willingness to change certain aspects of peer review, adjusting for covariates such as age, sex, being the author of at least one scientific work, being a reviewer of at least one scientific work, and belonging to a specific discipline. The results are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Text analysis and representation using word cloud were also used for an open-ended question.
level of satisfaction regarding some characteristics of the peer-review process.
a total of 516 participants completed the questionnaire. Specifically, 87.2% (N. 450) of the participants were the authors of at least one scientific publication, 78.7% were first authors at least once (N. 406), and 71.5% acted as reviewers within the peer-review process (N. 369). The results obtained from the multiple logistic regression models did not highlight any significant differences in terms of propensity to change for age and sex categories, except for a lower propensity of the under 35 age group towards unmasking, defined as the presence of reviewers and editorial boards names on the publish article (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 0.51; 95%CI 0.29-0.89) and a higher propensity for post-formatting proposals, defined as the possibility of formatting the article following journal guidelines after the acceptance, among those under 45 (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 1.73; 95%CI 0.90-3.31; OR 35-44 years vs 45-54 years: 2.02; 95%CI 1.10-3.72). Finally, approximately 50% of respondents found it appropriate to receive credits for the revision work performed, while approximately 30% found it appropriate to receive a discount on publication fees for the same journal in which they acted as reviewers.
the peer-review process is considered essential, but imperfect, by the professionals who participated in the questionnaire, thus providing a clear picture of the value that peer-review adds rigorously to each scientific work and the need to continue constructive dialogue on this topic within the scientific community.
同行评审过程是现代科学成果产出的基础，是其重要组成部分之一。然而，尽管有诸多益处，但它也存在一些关键问题。
收集流行病学科学界一组研究人员对同行评审过程的意见。
采用问卷调查评估的横断面研究。
通过SurveyMonkey平台向516名医疗保健专业人员发放了一份包含29个问题的调查问卷。问题聚焦于受访者的个人特征、他们对评审过程某些特征的满意度以及他们改变评审过程某些方面的倾向。此外，还包括三个开放式问题，让受访者对评审人员和评审过程应发挥的作用发表意见。通过问卷收集的信息以绝对频数和百分比形式进行描述性统计。其次，进行多元逻辑回归分析，以评估改变同行评审某些方面的意愿，并对年龄、性别、至少是一篇科学著作的作者、至少是一篇科学著作的评审人员以及所属特定学科等协变量进行调整。结果以比值比（OR）及其95%置信区间（95%CI）表示。还对一个开放式问题进行了文本分析并使用词云进行呈现。
对同行评审过程某些特征的满意度水平。
共有516名参与者完成了问卷。具体而言，87.2%（450名）的参与者至少是一篇科学出版物的作者，78.7%至少有一次是第一作者（406名），71.5%在同行评审过程中担任评审人员（369名）。多元逻辑回归模型得出的结果未显示年龄和性别类别在改变倾向方面有任何显著差异，但35岁以下年龄组对公开评审人员和编辑委员会成员姓名（即“揭盲”）的倾向较低（35岁以下与45 - 54岁相比：OR = 0.51；95%CI 0.29 - 0.89），45岁以下人群对稿件接受后按照期刊指南进行排版建议的倾向较高（35岁以下与45 - 54岁相比：OR = 1.73；95%CI 0.90 - 3.31；35 - 44岁与45 - 54岁相比：OR = 2.02；95%CI 1.10 - 3.72）。最后，约50%的受访者认为对所做的修订工作给予认可合适，约30%的受访者认为在所担任评审人员的同一期刊上给予出版费用折扣合适。
参与问卷调查的专业人员认为同行评审过程至关重要但并不完美，从而清晰地展现了同行评审为每一项科学工作严格增添的价值，以及在科学界就该主题继续进行建设性对话的必要性。
