Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Many journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry , enable authors to list peer reviewers as ‘preferred’ or ‘opposed’ suggestions to the editor. At the Journal of Neurochemistry , the handling editor ( HE ) may follow recommendations or select non‐author‐suggested reviewers (non‐ ASR s). We investigated whether selection of author‐suggested reviewers ( ASR s) influenced decisions on a paper, and whether differences might be related to a reviewer’s, editor's or manuscript's geographical location. In this retrospective analysis, we compared original research articles submitted to the Journal of Neurochemistry from 2013 through 2016 that were either reviewed exclusively by non‐ ASR s, by at least one ASR , by at least one reviewer marked by the author as ‘opposed’ or none. Manuscript outcome, reviewer rating of manuscript quality, rating of the reviewers’ performance by the editor (R‐score), time to review, and the country of the editor, reviewers and manuscript author were analyzed using non‐parametric rank‐based comparisons, chi‐square (χ 2 ) analysis, multivariate linear regression, one‐way analysis of variance, and inter‐rater reliability determination. Original research articles that had been reviewed by at least one ASR stood a higher chance of being accepted (525/1006 = 52%) than papers that had been reviewed by non‐ ASR s only (579/1800 = 32%). An article was 2.4 times more likely to be accepted than rejected by an ASR compared to a non‐ ASR (Pearson's χ 2 (1) = 181.3, p < 0.05). At decision, the editor did not simply follow the reviewers’ recommendation but had a balancing role: Rates of recommendation from reviewers for rejection were 11.2% (139/1241) with ASR s versus 29.0% (1379/4755) with non‐ ASR s (this is a ratio of 0.39 where 1 means no difference between rejection rates for both groups), whereas the proportion of final decisions to reject was 24.7% (248/1006) versus 45.7% (822/1800) (a ratio of 0.54, considerably closer to 1). Recommendations by non‐ ASR s were more favorable for manuscripts from USA /Canada and Europe than for Asia/Pacific or Other countries. ASR s judged North American manuscripts most favorably, and judged papers generally more positively (mean: 2.54 on a 1–5 scale) than did non‐ ASR s (mean: 3.16) reviewers, whereas time for review (13.28 vs. 13.20 days) did not differ significantly between these groups. We also found that editors preferably assigned reviewers from their own geographical region, but there was no tendency for reviewers to judge papers from their own region more favorably. Our findings strongly confirm a bias toward lower rejection rates when ASR s assess a paper, which led to the decision to abandon the option to recommend reviewers at the Journal of Neurochemistry . Open Data: Materials are available on https://osf.io/jshg7/ image
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».