Peer review practices by medical imaging journals.

Autor: Kwee TC; Medical Imaging Center, Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. thomaskwee@gmail.com., Adams HJA; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Kwee RM; Department of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Insights into imaging [Insights Imaging] 2020 Nov 27; Vol. 11 (1), pp. 125. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Nov 27.
DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00921-3
Abstrakt: Objective: To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals.
Methods: Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included.
Results: Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal's impact factor.
Conclusion: Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje