背景:同行评审过程,这是现代科学生产的基础,代表了它的基本要素之一。然而,尽管有很多好处,它提出了几个关键问题。
目的:收集流行病学科学界一组研究人员对同行评审过程的意见。
方法:采用问卷评估的横断面研究。
方法:通过SurveyMonkey平台对516名医疗保健专业人员进行了一项29个问题的调查。这些问题集中在受访者的个人特征以及他们对审查过程的某些特征的满意度以及他们改变其某些方面的倾向上。此外,包括三个开放式问题,允许受访者对审稿人和审查过程应发挥的作用提出意见。通过问卷收集的信息的绝对频率和百分比产生了描述性统计数据。其次,进行了多元逻辑回归分析,以评估改变同行评审某些方面的意愿,调整协变量,如年龄,性别,作为至少一项科学工作的作者,作为至少一项科学工作的审稿人,属于一个特定的学科。结果表示为比值比(OR)及其95%置信区间(95CI)。使用词云的文本分析和表示也用于开放式问题。
方法:关于同行评审过程的某些特征的满意度。
结果:共有516名参与者完成了问卷。具体来说,87.2%(N.450)的参与者是至少一个科学出版物的作者,78.7%是第一作者至少一次(N.406),71.5%在同行评审过程中担任评审员(N.369).从多元逻辑回归模型获得的结果没有突出显示年龄和性别类别变化倾向方面的任何显着差异,除了35岁以下年龄组的暴露倾向较低,定义为在发表的文章中出现审稿人和编辑委员会的名字(OR<35岁vs45-54岁:0.51;95CI0.29-0.89)和更高的格式后提案倾向,定义为在接受后按照期刊指南格式化文章的可能性,在45岁以下的人群中(OR<35岁vs45-54岁:1.73;95CI0.90-3.31;OR35-44岁vs45-54岁:2.02;95CI1.10-3.72)。最后,大约50%的受访者认为获得修订工作的学分是合适的,而大约30%的人认为他们担任审稿人的同一期刊的出版费折扣是合适的。
结论:同行评审过程被认为是必不可少的,但不完美,参与问卷的专业人士,因此,可以清楚地了解同行评审对每项科学工作的严格价值,以及在科学界继续就这一主题进行建设性对话的必要性。
BACKGROUND: the peer-review process, which is the foundation of modern scientific production, represents one of its essential elements. However, despite numerous benefits, it presents several critical issues.
OBJECTIVE: to collect the opinions of a group of researchers from the epidemiological scientific community on peer-review processes.
METHODS: cross-sectional study using a questionnaire evaluation.
METHODS: a 29-question survey was administered to 516 healthcare professionals through the SurveyMonkey platform. The questions focused on the individual characteristics of the respondents and their perceived satisfaction with some characteristics of the review process as well as their propensity of changing some aspects of it. In addition, three open-ended questions were included, allowing respondents to provide comments on the role that reviewers and the review process should play. Descriptive statistics were produced in terms of absolute frequencies and percentages for the information collected through the questionnaire. Secondly, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the willingness to change certain aspects of peer review, adjusting for covariates such as age, sex, being the author of at least one scientific work, being a reviewer of at least one scientific work, and belonging to a specific discipline. The results are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Text analysis and representation using word cloud were also used for an open-ended question.
METHODS: level of satisfaction regarding some characteristics of the peer-review process.
RESULTS: a total of 516 participants completed the questionnaire. Specifically, 87.2% (N. 450) of the participants were the authors of at least one scientific publication, 78.7% were first authors at least once (N. 406), and 71.5% acted as reviewers within the peer-review process (N. 369). The results obtained from the multiple logistic regression models did not highlight any significant differences in terms of propensity to change for age and sex categories, except for a lower propensity of the under 35 age group towards unmasking, defined as the presence of reviewers and editorial boards names on the publish article (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 0.51; 95%CI 0.29-0.89) and a higher propensity for post-formatting proposals, defined as the possibility of formatting the article following journal guidelines after the acceptance, among those under 45 (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 1.73; 95%CI 0.90-3.31; OR 35-44 years vs 45-54 years: 2.02; 95%CI 1.10-3.72). Finally, approximately 50% of respondents found it appropriate to receive credits for the revision work performed, while approximately 30% found it appropriate to receive a discount on publication fees for the same journal in which they acted as reviewers.
CONCLUSIONS: the peer-review process is considered essential, but imperfect, by the professionals who participated in the questionnaire, thus providing a clear picture of the value that peer-review adds rigorously to each scientific work and the need to continue constructive dialogue on this topic within the scientific community.