Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes. In this article, we analyze the association between author-suggested reviewers and review invitation, review scores, acceptance rates, and subjective review quality using a large dataset of close to 8K manuscripts from 46K authors and 21K reviewers from the journal PLOS ONE's Neuroscience section. We found that all-author-suggested review panels increase the chances of acceptance by 20 percent points vs all-editor-suggested panels while agreeing to review less often. While PLOS ONE has since ended the practice of asking for suggested reviewers, many others still use them and perhaps should consider the results presented here.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9744301 | PMC |
| http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273994 | PLOS |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?
Int Orthop
May 2023
Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds General Infirmary, Clarendon Wing, Floor D, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX, UK.
Purpose: To establish the current peer-reviewed practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery and correlate these to the journal's impact factor. Unfortunately, this is not receiving much attention and a critical literature gap in various disciplines; thus, determining the current practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery could provide valid insight that may be potentially applicable to other academic medicine disciplines as well.
Methods: Orthopaedic surgery journals belonging to the Journal Citation Reports were queried, and the following was extracted: impact factor (IF) and blinding practices: single (SBPR), double (DBPR), triple (TBPR), quadruple (QBPR), and open (OPR) blinding review process and possibility of author-suggested reviewer (ASR) and non-preferred reviewer (NPR) options.
Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE.
PLoS One
December 2022
Department of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF[Development of Novel Dosing Strategy According to the Area under the Concentration-Time Curve for Vancomycin].
Yakugaku Zasshi
November 2022
Department of Pharmacy, Kumamoto University Hospital.
Vancomycin is the first-choice antimicrobial for the lethal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Therefore, the therapeutic performance of vancomycin must be enhanced. The narrow therapeutic range between clinical efficacy and toxicity necessitates therapeutic drug monitoring.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe impact of COVID-19 on the doctor-patient relationship in China.
Front Public Health
August 2022
Medical Humanity and Information Management College, Hunan University of Medicine, Huaihua, China.
A strong doctor-patient relationship (DPR) is crucial to the effectiveness of treatment. It is imperative to maintain a good DPR during treatment. During 2019, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) brought new challenges to already difficult doctor-patient relationships.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSuggested reviewers: friends or foes?
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol
July 2022
Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Peer review, a core element of the editorial processing of manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals, is widely criticized as being flawed. One major criticism is that many journals allow or request authors to suggest reviewers, and that these 'preferred reviewers' assess papers more favorably than do reviewers not suggested by the authors. To test this hypothesis, a retrospective analysis was conducted of 162 manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Comparative Physiology A between 2015 and 2021.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!