Midway Stephen R, Hendee Laura, Daugherty Daniel J
Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70820, USA.
American Fisheries Society, 425 Barlow Place, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024 Jun 25;9(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s41073-024-00146-8.
As the production of scientific manuscripts and journal options both increase, the peer review process remains at the center of quality control. Recent advances in understanding reviewer biases and behaviors along with electronic manuscript handling records have allowed unprecedented investigations into the peer review process.
We examined a sample of six journals within the field of fisheries science (and all published by the American Fisheries Society) specifically looking for changes in reviewer invitation rates, review time, patterns of reviewer agreements, and rejection rates relative to different forms of blinding.
Data from 6,606 manuscripts from 2011-2021 showed significant increases in reviewer invitations. Specifically, four journals showed statistically significant increases in reviewer invitations while two showed no change. Review times changed relatively little (± 2 weeks), and we found no concerning patterns in reviewer agreement. However, we documented a consistently higher rejection rate-around 20% higher-of double-blinded manuscripts when compared to single-blinded manuscripts.
Our findings likely represent broader trends across fisheries science publications, and possibly extend to other life science disciplines. Because peer review remains a primary tool for scientific quality control, authors and editors are encouraged to understand the process and evaluate its performance at whatever level can help in the creation of trusted science. Minimally, our findings can help the six journals we investigated to better understand and improve their peer review processes.
随着科学稿件的产出和期刊选择的增加，同行评审过程仍然是质量控制的核心。近年来，在理解审稿人偏见和行为以及电子稿件处理记录方面取得的进展，使得对同行评审过程进行前所未有的调查成为可能。
我们研究了渔业科学领域的六种期刊（均由美国渔业协会出版）的样本，特别关注审稿人邀请率、评审时间、审稿人意见一致性模式以及相对于不同形式盲审的拒稿率的变化。
2011年至2021年期间6606篇稿件的数据显示，审稿人邀请数量显著增加。具体而言，四种期刊的审稿人邀请数量有统计学意义的增加，而两种期刊没有变化。评审时间变化相对较小（±2周），并且我们没有发现审稿人意见一致性方面令人担忧的模式。然而，我们记录到，与单盲稿件相比，双盲稿件的拒稿率始终更高，高出约20%。
我们的研究结果可能代表了渔业科学出版物的更广泛趋势，甚至可能延伸到其他生命科学学科。由于同行评审仍然是科学质量控制的主要工具，我们鼓励作者和编辑了解这一过程，并在任何有助于创建可信科学的层面评估其表现。至少，我们的研究结果可以帮助我们调查的六种期刊更好地理解和改进其同行评审过程。
