Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences 2021; 13(01): 32-40
DOI: 10.4103/ijmbs.ijmbs_141_20
Original Article

Attitudes of physicians and scientists to peer reviewing for biomedical journals: A survey from the Middle East and Africa

Salem Beshyah
1   Department of Medicine, Dubai Medical College, Dubai, UAE
2   The Endocrinology Clinic, Mediclinic Airport Road Hospital, Abu Dhabi
,
Khawla Ali
3   Department of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical University of Bahrain, Adliya
,
Khadija Hafidh
1   Department of Medicine, Dubai Medical College, Dubai, UAE
4   Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Rashid Hospital, Dubai, UAE
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Introduction: Peer review is vital to the scientific publishing process. However, the present system has been criticized and accused of bias, lack of transparency, and failure to detect significant breakthroughs. Peer reviewers usually work pro bono, and their efforts are not formally acknowledged. Some journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers who can complete timely reviews, resulting in significant publication delay. Materials and Methods: An online survey of a convenience sample of clinicians and biomedical scientists from the Middle East (107) and Africa (69) was conducted to explore why reviewers decline to review and to ascertain their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were scored on 5-point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low agreement. Results: One hundred and seventy two respondents provided adequate responses for analysis. Factors rated most highly in importance for the decision to accept to review a paper included contribution of the paper to the subject area (69.8%), the relevance of the topic to own work (66.0%), and desire to keep up to date with research (63.8%). The most highly rated factor that was important in the decision to decline to review was conflict with other workloads (69.4%), followed by low quality of submissions and tight time scale (65.8% for both), and lack of interest (65.1%). Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive. However, reviewers agreed that nonfinancial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: annual acknowledgment on the journal's website (78.5%), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (74.3%) and quality of the review (73.0%), appointment of reviewers to the journal's editorial board (69.1%), and being offered free subscription to the journal content (68.7%). Conclusions: Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. Lack of time is the principal factor in the decision to decline. Reviewing should be formally recognized by academic institutions, and journals should acknowledge reviewers' work.

Key-words:

Developing regions - medical journalism - peer review - research - scholarly publishing

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Received: 14 November 2020

Accepted: 22 March 2021

Article published online:
14 July 2022

© 2021. The Libyan Authority of Scientific Research and Technologyand the Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License,permitting copying and reproductionso long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, oradapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1323-9.
  • 2 Rennie D. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Books; 1999.
  • 3 Franklin J. The importance of peer reviewing. Sci World J 2001;1:23-4.
  • 4 Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96-7.
  • 5 Smith R. Peer review: Reform or revolution? BMJ 1997;315:759-60.
  • 6 Beshyah SA, Elkhammas E. Manuscript peer review for emerging journals: Where we go from here? Ibnosina J Med Biomed Sci 2015;7:155-7.
  • 7 Alsanea N, Al-Ghammas A, Pangan-Menor J, Tejano RV, Al-Bassam N, Duero-Ebora J, et al. The obstacles facing scientific and medical publishing in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med 2014;34:202-6.
  • 8 Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials. JAMA 2002;287:2781-3.
  • 9 Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673.
  • 10 Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Identifying manuscript reviewers: Randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA 2002;287:2795-6.
  • 11 Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Prodding tardy reviewers: A randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail. JAMA 2002;287:2794-5.
  • 12 Beshyah SA. Authors' selection of target journals and their attitudes to emerging journals: A survey from two developing regions. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2019;19:e51-7.
  • 13 Sebola MP. Peer review, scholarship, and editors of scientific publications: The death of scientific knowledge in Africa. Koers (Online) 2018;83:1-13. [doi: 10.19108/koers.83.1.2314].
  • 14 Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9-12.
  • 15 Beshyah SA, Farooqi MH, Farghaly M, Abusnana S, Al Kaabi JM, Benbarka MM. Management of diabetes during Ramadan Fasting: A comprehensive survey of physicians' knowledge, Attitudes and Practices. Ibnosina J Med Biomed Sci 2017;9:26-36.
  • 16 Beshyah SA, Beshyah WS, Yaghi S, Beshyah AS, Faroqi MH, Lakhdar AA. Perceptions of health care professionals of the medical aspects of driving safety: An electronic survey. Ibnosina J Med Biomed Sci 2015;7:169-75.
  • 17 Freckelton I. Perils of precipitate publication: Fraudulent and substandard COVID-19 research. J Law Med 2020;27:779-89.
  • 18 Kurdi MS. 'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes. Indian J Anaesth 2015;59:465-70.
  • 19 Yarris LM, Gottlieb M, Scott K, Sampson C, Rose E, Chan TM, et al. Academic primer series: Key papers about peer review. West J Emerg Med 2017;18:721-8.
  • 20 Politzer-Ahles S, Girolamo T, Ghali S. Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing. J Engl Acad Purp 2020;47:100895.
  • 21 Menon V, Muraleedharan A. Credit and visibility for peer reviewing: An overlooked aspect of scholarly publication. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2016;7:330-1.
  • 22 Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: Maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015;30:360-4.
  • 23 Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Med Teach 2012;34:698-704.
  • 24 Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med 2011;42:1-3.