An International Survey of Biomedical Researchers Knowledge, Perceptions, and Training on Peer Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To provide an up-to-date perspective of biomedical researchers’ knowledge and perceptions of and engagement with peer review training. Previous studies, many done in consultation with editors and publishers, have reported researchers’ attitudes on peer review.1,2 This survey study is descriptive and does not have any a priori hypotheses. Design A cross-sectional online survey of biomedical researchers around the world was conducted. The CHERRIES (Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline was used to inform the reporting of findings. A random sample of 2000 corresponding authors was collected from a Scopus source list of recently published articles in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Authors from journals that exclusively published non-English articles were excluded. The closed survey was purpose built for this study, was administered using SurveyMonkey, and was available only to participants identified via the random sampling framework. Participants were invited through email; participation was voluntary, and all data were collected anonymously. Collected data included participants’ demographic characteristics as well as their experience with and opinions about peer review, with additional open-ended questions allowing participants to elaborate their responses. Data were analyzed from all surveys in which participants responded to 80% or more of the questions. Results Of the 2000 invited researchers, 186 (9.3%) responded. The average survey completion rate among these participants was 91%. Most participants (142 [76.3%]) reported having 6 or more years of experience in scholarly publishing. One hundred two of 180 participants (56.7%) reported being active as a manuscript peer reviewer for more than 6 years, and 171 of 185 participants (92.4%) reported having peer reviewed at least 1 article in the last 12 months. Despite the robust experience and activity in manuscript peer review reported by the participants, only 28 of 185 participants (15.1%) completed formal training in peer review. Twelve of 64 participants (18.8%) received training through in-person lecture, and 11 of 64 participants (17.2%) received training through online lecture. Thirteen of 36 participants (52.8%) received training in peer review provided by a university or college. Conclusions This study will provide a current international perspective on biomedical researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and engagement regarding peer review training. The results of the survey may help identify gaps in peer review training experience and knowledge. Subsequently, the findings may guide the creation of future training options, inform the development of preferred training methods, and increase comprehensiveness of peer review training for biomedical researchers. References Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2013;64:132-161. doi:10.1002/asi.22798 Publons. 2018 Global state of peer reviewy. 2018. Accessed July 2022. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State- Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf Conflict of Interest Disclosures David Moher is an associate director of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication but was not involved in the review or decision for this abstract. No other disclosures reported. https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/49348bfde8ee658b65c0fa925d323933.png
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 | 0,021 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».