Quantifying professionalism in peer review
- PDF / 575,527 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 34 Downloads / 176 Views
(2020) 5:9
RESEARCH
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Open Access
Quantifying professionalism in peer review Travis G. Gerwing1* , Alyssa M. Allen Gerwing2, Stephanie Avery-Gomm3, Chi-Yeung Choi4, Jeff C. Clements5 and Joshua A. Rash6
Abstract Background: The process of peer-review in academia has attracted criticism surrounding issues of bias, fairness, and professionalism; however, frequency of occurrence of such comments is unknown. Methods: We evaluated 1491 sets of reviewer comments from the fields of “Ecology and Evolution” and “Behavioural Medicine,” of which 920 were retrieved from the online review repository Publons and 571 were obtained from six early career investigators. Comment sets were coded for the occurrence of “unprofessional comments” and “incomplete, inaccurate or unsubstantiated critiques” using an a-prior rubric based on our published research. Results are presented as absolute numbers and percentages. Results: Overall, 12% (179) of comment sets included at least one unprofessional comment towards the author or their work, and 41% (611) contained incomplete, inaccurate of unsubstantiated critiques (IIUC). Conclusions: The large number of unprofessional comments, and IIUCs observed could heighten psychological distress among investigators, particularly those at an early stage in their career. We suggest that development and adherence to a universally agreed upon reviewer code of conduct is necessary to improve the quality and professional experience of peer review. Keywords: Biology, Peer review, Psychology
Background Peer review, the foundation of modern science, is the gatekeeper of scientific advancement. Theoretically, peer reviewers engage in a collegial but thorough review of a manuscript, where ideas, methods, and interpretations are constructively criticized. The goals of peer review are to ensure the credibility and integrity of the scientific record by pointing out weaknesses, offering feedback for improvement, and ensuring that misleading science is not published. Unfortunately, peer review has attracted criticism surrounding issues of efficiency, bias, and fairness [1–3]. While championed by many scientists [4], there is a paucity of empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of peer review for improving manuscripts [5–7]. Making matters worse, some peer-reviewer * Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
comments lack professional comportment, with comments demeaning authors, or focusing upon author gender, sex, race, or country of origin, rather than the technical merit of the submitted work [3, 7–9]. Unprofessional comments may contribute to psychological distress within academia, particularly among early career investigators (ECIs) [9, 10]. In a recent study, Silbiger and Stubler [3] surveyed the lifetime prevalence of unprofessional (demeaning) comments made during the peer-review process. A selfselecting sample of
Data Loading...
