Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers

被引:14
作者
Melero, R
López-Santoveña, F
机构
[1] Food Sci & Technol Int, Valencia 46100, Spain
[2] CSIC, Inst Agroquim & Tecnol Alimentos, Comp & Stat Unit, Valencia 46100, Spain
关键词
peer review; referees; attitudes; electronic transmission;
D O I
10.1106/0MXD-YM6F-3LM6-G9EB
中图分类号
O69 [应用化学];
学科分类号
081704 ;
摘要
A survey was mailed to 293 referees from the review board of Food Science and Technology International with the following personal characteristics: ages: 35-45 (35%), 45-55 (37%), and 55-65 (27%); 93% PhD graduates; 69% male, 98% researchers, 82% teachers too, 85% review for other journals as well to assess reviewers' attitudes or preferences in favor of or against masking their identity, and toward the electronic transmission of papers for review. The reviewers were mainly from Europe, North America, and South America. The questionnaire was anonymous and asked if respondents were in favor of an open review or masking of the reviewers, and if they agreed with the electronic transmission of the papers for their review (both from the point of view of author and reviewer). The response rate was 35% (103 respondents). The consistency between the answers as being authors or reviewers when asked by the peer review process was significant (P < 0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of masking reviewers, and 17% completely favored unblinded review. The consistency between the answers for paper transmission was significant (P < 0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of electronic transmission, 25% were against it. There was a significant association between the answers in favor of or against e-transmission and the age either as reviewers (P = 0.009) or as authors (P = 0.031). The other associations between the system of review and gender or age were not significant. There was a preference among the participants for masking the reviewers, and a tendency to use the Web as the transmission medium because it is considered faster, easier, simpler, and more economic.
引用
收藏
页码:521 / 527
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
[41]   ATTITUDES TOWARD CONDOMS AND CONDOM USE - A REVIEW [J].
ROSS, MW .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS, 1992, 3 (01) :10-16
[42]   Attitudes toward people with disability: A literature review [J].
Moreno Pilo, Maria Inmaculada ;
Moran Suarez, Maria Lucia ;
Gomez Sanchez, Laura E. ;
Solis Garcia, Patricia ;
Alcedo Rodriguez, Ma Angeles .
REVISTA ESPANOLA DE DISCAPACIDAD-REDIS, 2022, 10 (01) :7-27
[43]   Chinese Students' Perceptions toward Online Peer Review [J].
江晶鑫 ;
窦有策 .
校园英语, 2017, (40) :94-95
[44]   Clinicians' Attitudes Toward Electronic Health Records in Saudi Arabia [J].
Alessa, Tourkiah .
CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (03)
[45]   Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [J].
Bianchi, Federico ;
Squazzoni, Flaminio .
SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2022, 49 (05) :791-800
[46]   Causal Information on Children's Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions Toward a Peer With Obesity [J].
Fitzgerald, Amanda ;
Heary, Caroline ;
Roddy, Sarah .
OBESITY FACTS, 2013, 6 (03) :247-257
[47]   Attitudes toward medications for opioid use disorder among peer recovery specialists [J].
Pasman, Emily ;
Lee, Guijin ;
Singer, Samantha ;
Burson, Nick ;
Agius, Elizabeth ;
Resko, Stella M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, 2024, 50 (03) :391-400
[48]   (How) should researchers publicize their research papers before peer review? [J].
Kardos, Peter ;
Kun, Adam ;
Pleh, Csaba ;
Jordan, Ferenc .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2023, 128 (03) :2019-2023
[49]   Revamped Open-Peer Review Process (ROPP) [J].
Ahmad, Jasni ;
Shiratuddin, Norshuhada .
KMICE 2008 - KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 2008 - TRANSFERRING, MANAGING AND MAINTAINING KNOWLEDGE FOR NATION CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT, 2008, :584-588
[50]   A new scholar's perspective on open peer review [J].
Bali, Maha .
TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2015, 20 (08) :857-863