Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review

Parmanne, Piitu; Laajava, Joonas; Järvinen, Noora; Harju, Terttu; Marttunen, Mauri; Saloheimo, Pertti (2023-10-24)
 
Avaa tiedosto
Lataukset: 

URL:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00140-6

Parmanne, Piitu
Laajava, Joonas
Järvinen, Noora
Harju, Terttu
Marttunen, Mauri
Saloheimo, Pertti
Springer
24.10.2023

Parmanne, P., Laajava, J., Järvinen, N. et al. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 8, 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00140-6

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00140-6
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202312053506
Tiivistelmä
Abstract

Background:
There is a power imbalance between authors and reviewers in single-blind peer review. We explored how switching from single-blind to double-blind peer review affected 1) the willingness of experts to review, 2) their publication recommendations, and 3) the quality of review reports.

Methods:
The Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review in September 2017. The proportion of review invitations that resulted in a received review report was counted. The reviewers’ recommendations of “accept as is”, “minor revision”, “major revision” or “reject” were explored. The content of the reviews was assessed by two experienced reviewers using the Review Quality Instrument modified to apply to both original research and review manuscripts. The study material comprised reviews submitted from September 2017 to February 2018. The controls were the reviews submitted between September 2015 and February 2016 and between September 2016 and February 2017. The reviewers’ recommendations and the scorings of quality assessments were tested with the Chi square test, and the means of quality assessments with the independent-samples t test.

Results:
A total of 118 double-blind first-round reviews of 59 manuscripts were compared with 232 single-blind first-round reviews of 116 manuscripts. The proportion of successful review invitations when reviewing single-blinded was 67%, and when reviewing double-blinded, 66%. When reviewing double-blinded, the reviewers recommended accept as is or minor revision less often than during the control period (59% vs. 73%), and major revision or rejection more often (41% vs 27%, P = 0.010). For the quality assessment, 116 reviews from the double-blind period were compared with 104 reviews conducted between September 2016 and February 2017. On a 1–5 scale (1 poor, 5 excellent), double-blind reviews received higher overall proportion of ratings of 4 and 5 than single-blind reviews (56% vs. 49%, P < 0.001). Means for the overall quality of double-blind reviews were 3.38 (IQR, 3.33–3.44) vs. 3.22 (3.17–3.28; P < 0.001) for single-blind reviews.

Conclusions:
The quality of the reviews conducted double-blind was better than of those conducted single-blind. Switching to double-blind review did not alter the reviewers’ willingness to review. The reviewers became slightly more critical.
Kokoelmat
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Ellei muuten mainita, aineiston lisenssi on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/