论文标题：Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics

期刊：Research Integrity and Peer Review

作者：Barbara McGillivray and Elisa De Ranieri

发表时间：2018/08/17

数字识别码：10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z

原文链接：https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z?utm_source=WeChat&utm_medium=Website_linksSocial_media_organic&utm_content=CelZha-MixedBrand-multijournal-Multidisciplinary-China&utm_campaign=ORG_AWA_CZH_BMCWechat_dailyposts_blogs

微信链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jNTPNTGcz3bIF-brWcenpg

原文作者：Barbara McGillivray，Elisa De Ranieri

本周是同行评审周，我们邀您一起回顾最近发表在Research Integrity and Peer Review上的文章Update and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics对Nature旗下25本期刊的审稿模式进行的数据分析。有多少作者选择了双盲同行评议（double-blind peer review）？什么样的作者更青睐双盲同行评议？文章试图为这些问题找到答案。

图片来源：flickr.com/Gideon Burton

较为传统的审稿模式通常是单盲同行评议（single-blind peer review），在这种模式中审稿人知道作者的身份和所属机构。但是在双盲同行评议（double-blind peer review）中，审稿人看不到作者的身份和所属机构，作者也不知道审稿人的信息。

双盲同行评议是为避免学术出版中可能存在的审稿人偏差而提出的一种可能的解决方案。这个研究的目标就是找出选择双盲同行评议的通讯作者们都具备什么特点，以及选择不同的审稿模式对发表结果是否存在影响。

方法

作者使用的数据包括25本自然旗下期刊在2015年3月到2017年2月间收到的128,454份投稿。他们调查了双盲同行评议与期刊等级、性别、国家和通讯作者所在机构的国际地位之间的关系，以及稿件接收情况和审稿模式、作者特征之间的联系。

通讯作者的性别（分为男性、女性和不确定三类）是用一个第三方服务通过作者的名（first name）来确定的。通讯作者所在机构的国际地位则是按2016-2017年度泰晤士高等教育（Times Higher Education, THE）的排名情况将所有机构分为3个类别：类别1为THE排名中1到10名的学校，投稿数占总数的6%；类别2为THE排名11到100的学校，投稿数占总数的20%；类别3为THE排名100之后的学校，投稿数占总数的30%。其他因本身不是大学而不在THE排名中的所有机构都列为类别4，投稿数占总数的45%。

数据分析结果

研究者发现，在所有投稿中有12%选择了双盲同行评议。期刊级别和审稿模式间存在明显的关联，所投期刊级别越高，选择双盲同行评议的比例越高。（表2）

表2 依据期刊等级的同行评议模型

在分析了50,533名通讯作者的性别信息之后，研究者发现审稿模式的选择和性别之间没有明显关联。

从通讯作者的从属机构来看，所在机构的国际地位越低，作者越可能选择双盲同行评议（表4）。

表4 依据机构组的同行评议模型

在投稿量最多的10个国家里，研究者发现国家和审稿模式之间高度相关。中国作者最喜欢使用双盲同行评议，而美国作者最喜欢单盲同行评议。亚洲国家更倾向于使用双盲同行评议。

表5 依据国家的同行评议模型

从投稿结果来看，选择双盲同行评议的文章无论是初审结果还是审稿人评议后的结果都比单盲同行评议的文章更差。

结论

该研究是第一个根据作者选择的审稿模式（双盲vs.单盲同行评议）来分析、比较涵盖广泛学科的科学期刊对投稿接收情况的研究。他们按审稿模式和通讯作者的特征，对2年内向25本自然旗下期刊投稿的数据库进行了分析。他们的目的是了解作者的特征，并推断出与通讯作者的性别、国家或所属机构国际地位相关的任何潜在的隐性偏见。

该研究为作者在向高影响力期刊投稿时的行为提供了新的见解。研究者们发现，作者们向自然旗下期刊投稿时，期刊影响力越大作者们越倾向于选择双盲同行评议；某些特定国家（在投稿率较高的国家中印度和中国尤其如此）的作者特别青睐双盲同行评议；作者所在机构国际排名越靠后，越容易选择双盲同行评议。没有观察到作者的性别对投稿模式有任何影响。

研究者还发现，选择双盲同行评议的投稿被送审和被接收的可能性比选择单盲同行评议的投稿更小；来自女性作者和来自国际排名较靠后的机构的作者，其投稿的接收率分别低于男性作者和机构国际排名较靠前的作者。

不过由于成功被接收的论文数量较少，投稿质量也缺乏独立的评价标准，研究者表示无法就隐性偏见的存在以及双盲同行评议在减少或消除这种偏见的有效性得到确切的结论。

摘要：

Background

Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model.

Methods

Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. We then studied the manuscripts’ editorial outcome in relation to review model and author’s characteristics. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). The prestige of the corresponding author’s institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearson’s chi-square and binomial tests. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors.

Results

Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.054, df = 2). We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value = 0.6179). We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value < 0.001, df = 2, Cramer’s V = 0.106). In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value < 0.001, df = 10, Cramer’s V = 0.189). The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value < 0.001, df = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.112 for first decision; p value < 0.001; df = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.082 for post-review decision).

Conclusions

The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes.

阅读原文请访问：

https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z?utm_source=WeChat&utm_medium=Website_linksSocial_media_organic&utm_content=CelZha-MixedBrand-multijournal-Multidisciplinary-China&utm_campaign=ORG_AWA_CZH_BMCWechat_dailyposts_blogs

期刊介绍：

Research Integrity and Peer Review (https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/)is an international, open access, peer reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of integrity in research publication, including peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics. Particular consideration is given to submissions that address current controversies and limitations in the field and offer potential solutions. We welcome research into peer review and editorial decision making, however reports of individual journal or publisher decisions or actions will not be considered.

（来源：科学网）