The peer review process: A survey among scientists in radiology

• Published in: European journal of radiology Vol. 165; p. 110940
• Main Authors: Kwee, Robert M., Almaghrabi, Maan T., Kwee, Thomas C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier B.V 01.08.2023
• Subjects: Humans; Peer Review; Radiography; Radiology; Surveys and Questionnaires; Radiology; Surveys and questionnaires; Research; Peer review
• ISSN: 0720-048X; 1872-7727
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110940

[Display omitted] •Generally, reviewing a research article takes a median of 2.5 h.•Most survey respondents (61.1% (143/234)) believe a reviewer should be rewarded.•Most survey respondents (75.2% [176/234]) accept editorial desk rejections.•Most survey respondents (42.3% [99/234]) prefer a double-blinded peer review model. To map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process. A survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals. 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. Publishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.