The peer review process: A survey among scientists in radiology

Purpose: To map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process. Method: A survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals. Results: 244 corresponding authors participated. In considering a peer review invitation, most respondents found the topic and the availability of time very important (62.1% [144/132] and 57.8% [134/232], respectively), the quality of the abstract, the prestige/impact factor of the journal, and the sense of professional duty important (43.7% [101/231], 42.2% [98/232], and 53.9% [125/232], respectively), and were indifferent about a reward (35.3% [82/232]). However, 61.1% (143/234) believed that a reviewer should be rewarded. Direct financial compensation (27.6% [42/152]), discounted fees for society memberships, conventions, and/or journal subscriptions (24.3% [37/152]), and Continuing Medical Education credits (23.0% [35/152]) were the most frequently desired rewards. 73.4% (179/244) of respondents never received formal peer review training, of whom 31.2% (54/173) would like to, particularly less experienced researchers (Chi-Square P = 0.001). The median reported review time per article was 2.5 h. 75.2% (176/234) of respondents found it acceptable that a manuscript is rejected by an editor without formal peer review. The double-blinded peer review model was preferred by most respondents (42.3% [99/234]). A median of 6 weeks was considered the maximum acceptable time from manuscript submission to initial decision by a journal. Conclusion: Publishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.