Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS: To explore the review process from the reviewers' perspective, including perceptions of the time taken to carry out a review, barriers to and facilitators of the review process, benefits of reviewing, opinions about blinded versus transparent reviews, how the process of reviewing might be made easier, and to assess reviewers' experience of, and training in, the peer review process. SUBJECTS: Reviewers for Medical Education invited to review over a 5-month period between 1st June and 31st October 2002 (n = 221). METHODS: Postal questionnaire accompanying a request to review a manuscript. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 64.7% (the response rate of those completing and returning a manuscript review and a questionnaire was 87%); 30% were first-time reviewers for Medical Education, although the majority (87%) reviewed for other journals. The average time spent on the current review was just over 3 hours (184.3 minutes, median 162 minutes, range 30-810 minutes), which was stated to be about the same time as usual for the majority. Only 14% of respondents had received formal training in reviewing, although 66% said they would like such training. A total of 79.5% said they would have liked to seek a colleague's opinion, and 90% wished to receive other reviewers' comments. A wide range of problems with the review process were encountered, and the main way in which it was felt it could be made easier was to make the process electronic. Nearly three quarters of respondents said they would be happy to sign their reviews. Acting as a reviewer was seen as a professional responsibility and as an opportunity for learning. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides useful insights into the process of review from the reviewer's perspective. Reviewers spend a substantial amount of time on each paper. Many referees feel their reviews would benefit if they had formal training in the review process, received feedback on their reviews, or were able to ask colleagues for opinions on the paper being reviewed. Most reviewers would be willing to sign their reviews and feel that the process should be transparent. These results may help inform discussions about how to better prepare peer reviewers for their job.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,155 | 0,546 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».