The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jennifer A Meyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the Peer Review Process at six journals of ecology and evolution
Ecology and Evolution, 2019Co-Authors: Charles W Fox, Meghan A Duffy, Daphne J Fairbairn, Jennifer A MeyerAbstract:Author(s): Fox, CW; Duffy, MA; Fairbairn, DJ; Meyer, JA | Abstract: Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication Process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and Reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the Peer Review Process differed between female and male editors and Reviewers. We found that for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women among Reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female Reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to Review did not differ in whether they responded to the Review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to Review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as Reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.
-
author suggested Reviewers gender differences and influences on the Peer Review Process at an ecology journal
Functional Ecology, 2017Co-Authors: Charles W Fox, Sean C Burns, Anna D Muncy, Jennifer A MeyerAbstract:Summary Peer Review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable Reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred Reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to Review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest Reviewers that they expect to Review their paper positively. In this study, we examine the Reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the Peer Review Process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and Reviewer) influences the role of preferred Reviewers in the Peer Review Process. Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred Reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred Reviewers. Most author-preferred Reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014. Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred Reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred Reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors. There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of Reviewers invited to Review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' Review invitations but were not more likely to agree to Review. Most strikingly, author-preferred Reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected Reviewers, and papers Reviewed by author-preferred Reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers Reviewed by editor-selected Reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the Process. Suggesting preferred Reviewers benefits authors because preferred Reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected Reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred Reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected Reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions. A Lay Summary is available for this article.
-
editor and Reviewer gender influence the Peer Review Process but not Peer Review outcomes at an ecology journal
Functional Ecology, 2016Co-Authors: Charles W Fox, Sean C Burns, Jennifer A MeyerAbstract:Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and Peer Review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the Peer Review Process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and Reviewers influence Reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by Reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected Reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as Reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female Reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female Reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female Reviewers. Editors also over-selected Reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to Review were less likely to respond to Review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to Review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to Review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female Reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected Reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected Reviewers differed little between early-career male and female editors but differed a lot between late-career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to Review were less likely to agree to Review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to Review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to Review invitations, but not the final outcome of the Peer Review Process. To increase diversity of Reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.
Charles W Fox - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the Peer Review Process at six journals of ecology and evolution
Ecology and Evolution, 2019Co-Authors: Charles W Fox, Meghan A Duffy, Daphne J Fairbairn, Jennifer A MeyerAbstract:Author(s): Fox, CW; Duffy, MA; Fairbairn, DJ; Meyer, JA | Abstract: Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication Process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and Reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the Peer Review Process differed between female and male editors and Reviewers. We found that for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women among Reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female Reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to Review did not differ in whether they responded to the Review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to Review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as Reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.
-
author suggested Reviewers gender differences and influences on the Peer Review Process at an ecology journal
Functional Ecology, 2017Co-Authors: Charles W Fox, Sean C Burns, Anna D Muncy, Jennifer A MeyerAbstract:Summary Peer Review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable Reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred Reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to Review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest Reviewers that they expect to Review their paper positively. In this study, we examine the Reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the Peer Review Process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and Reviewer) influences the role of preferred Reviewers in the Peer Review Process. Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred Reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred Reviewers. Most author-preferred Reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014. Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred Reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred Reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors. There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of Reviewers invited to Review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' Review invitations but were not more likely to agree to Review. Most strikingly, author-preferred Reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected Reviewers, and papers Reviewed by author-preferred Reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers Reviewed by editor-selected Reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the Process. Suggesting preferred Reviewers benefits authors because preferred Reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected Reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred Reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected Reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions. A Lay Summary is available for this article.
-
editor and Reviewer gender influence the Peer Review Process but not Peer Review outcomes at an ecology journal
Functional Ecology, 2016Co-Authors: Charles W Fox, Sean C Burns, Jennifer A MeyerAbstract:Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and Peer Review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the Peer Review Process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and Reviewers influence Reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by Reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected Reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as Reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female Reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female Reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female Reviewers. Editors also over-selected Reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to Review were less likely to respond to Review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to Review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to Review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female Reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected Reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected Reviewers differed little between early-career male and female editors but differed a lot between late-career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to Review were less likely to agree to Review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to Review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to Review invitations, but not the final outcome of the Peer Review Process. To increase diversity of Reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.
Isabelle Boutron - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the Peer Review Process a vignette based survey
BMC Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Amytis Heim, Isabelle BoutronAbstract:We aimed to determine the best study designs for assessing interventions to improve the Peer Review Process according to experts’ opinions. Furthermore, for interventions previously evaluated, we determined whether the study designs actually used were rated as the best study designs. Study design: A series of six vignette-based surveys exploring the best study designs for six different interventions (training Peer Reviewers, adding an expert to the Peer Review Process, use of reporting guidelines checklists, blinding Peer Reviewers to the results (i.e., results-free Peer Review), giving incentives to Peer Reviewers, and post-publication Peer Review). Vignette construction: Vignettes were case scenarios of trials assessing interventions aimed at improving the quality of Peer Review. For each intervention, the vignette included the study type (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT]), setting (e.g., single biomedical journal), and type of manuscript assessed (e.g., actual manuscripts received by the journal); each of these three features varied between vignettes. Participants: Researchers with expertise in Peer Review or methodology of clinical trials. Outcome: Participants were proposed two vignettes describing two different study designs to assess the same intervention and had to indicate which study design they preferred on a scale, from − 5 (preference for study A) to 5 (preference for study B), 0 indicating no preference between the suggested designs (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were trust in the results and feasibility of the designs. A total of 204 experts assessed 1044 paired comparisons. The preferred study type was RCTs with randomization of manuscripts for four interventions (adding an expert, use of reporting guidelines checklist, results-free Peer Review, post-publication Peer Review) and RCTs with randomization of Peer Reviewers for two interventions (training Peer Reviewers and using incentives). The preferred setting was mainly several biomedical journals from different publishers, and the preferred type of manuscript was actual manuscripts submitted to journals. However, the most feasible designs were often cluster RCTs and interrupted time series analysis set in a single biomedical journal, with the assessment of a fabricated manuscript. Three interventions were previously assessed: none used the design rated first in preference by experts. The vignette-based survey allowed us to identify the best study designs for assessing different interventions to improve Peer Review according to experts’ opinion. There is gap between the preferred study designs and the designs actually used.
-
impact of interventions to improve the quality of Peer Review of biomedical journals a systematic Review and meta analysis
BMC Medicine, 2016Co-Authors: Philippe Ravaud, Anthony Chauvin, Rachel A Bruce, Ludovic Trinquart, Isabelle BoutronAbstract:Background The Peer Review Process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of Peer Review for biomedical publications.
Markus Helmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
gender bias in scholarly Peer Review
eLife, 2017Co-Authors: Markus Helmer, Manuel Schottdorf, Andreas Neef, Demian BattagliaAbstract:Peer Review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that Peer Reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the Peer-Review Process because the identity of Peer Reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 Reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the Peer-Review Process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.
Philippe Ravaud - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career Peer Reviewers using an online consort based Peer Review tool cobPeer versus the usual Peer Review Process a cross sectional diagnostic study
BMC Medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Anthony Chauvin, Philippe Ravaud, David Moher, David L Schriger, Sally Hopewell, Daniel R Shanahan, Sabina Alam, Gabriel Baron, Jeanphilippe Regnaux, Perrine CrequitAbstract:The Peer Review Process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based Peer-Review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual Peer-Review Process. We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never Reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual Peer-Review Process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic Reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual Peer-Review Process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual Peer-Review Process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual Process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual Peer Review Processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step Peer-Review Process could help improve the quality of reporting. Clinical.Trials.gov NCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).
-
designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the Peer Review Process a vignette based survey
BMC Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Amytis Heim, Isabelle BoutronAbstract:We aimed to determine the best study designs for assessing interventions to improve the Peer Review Process according to experts’ opinions. Furthermore, for interventions previously evaluated, we determined whether the study designs actually used were rated as the best study designs. Study design: A series of six vignette-based surveys exploring the best study designs for six different interventions (training Peer Reviewers, adding an expert to the Peer Review Process, use of reporting guidelines checklists, blinding Peer Reviewers to the results (i.e., results-free Peer Review), giving incentives to Peer Reviewers, and post-publication Peer Review). Vignette construction: Vignettes were case scenarios of trials assessing interventions aimed at improving the quality of Peer Review. For each intervention, the vignette included the study type (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT]), setting (e.g., single biomedical journal), and type of manuscript assessed (e.g., actual manuscripts received by the journal); each of these three features varied between vignettes. Participants: Researchers with expertise in Peer Review or methodology of clinical trials. Outcome: Participants were proposed two vignettes describing two different study designs to assess the same intervention and had to indicate which study design they preferred on a scale, from − 5 (preference for study A) to 5 (preference for study B), 0 indicating no preference between the suggested designs (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were trust in the results and feasibility of the designs. A total of 204 experts assessed 1044 paired comparisons. The preferred study type was RCTs with randomization of manuscripts for four interventions (adding an expert, use of reporting guidelines checklist, results-free Peer Review, post-publication Peer Review) and RCTs with randomization of Peer Reviewers for two interventions (training Peer Reviewers and using incentives). The preferred setting was mainly several biomedical journals from different publishers, and the preferred type of manuscript was actual manuscripts submitted to journals. However, the most feasible designs were often cluster RCTs and interrupted time series analysis set in a single biomedical journal, with the assessment of a fabricated manuscript. Three interventions were previously assessed: none used the design rated first in preference by experts. The vignette-based survey allowed us to identify the best study designs for assessing different interventions to improve Peer Review according to experts’ opinion. There is gap between the preferred study designs and the designs actually used.
-
impact of interventions to improve the quality of Peer Review of biomedical journals a systematic Review and meta analysis
BMC Medicine, 2016Co-Authors: Philippe Ravaud, Anthony Chauvin, Rachel A Bruce, Ludovic Trinquart, Isabelle BoutronAbstract:Background The Peer Review Process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of Peer Review for biomedical publications.
-
use of trial register information during the Peer Review Process
PLOS ONE, 2013Co-Authors: Sylvain Mathieu, Anwen Chan, Philippe RavaudAbstract:Introduction Evidence in the medical literature suggests that trial registration may not be preventing selective reporting of results. We wondered about the place of such information in the Peer-Review Process. Method We asked 1,503 corresponding authors of clinical trials and 1,733 Reviewers to complete an online survey soliciting their views on the use of trial registry information during the Peer-Review Process. Results 1,136 authors (n = 713) and Reviewers (n = 423) responded (37.5%); 676 (59.5%) had Reviewed an article reporting a clinical trial in the past 2 years. Among these, 232 (34.3%) examined information registered on a trial registry. If one or more items (primary outcome, eligibility criteria, etc.) differed between the registry record and the manuscript, 206 (88.8%) mentioned the discrepancy in their Review comments, 46 (19.8%) advised editors not to accept the manuscript, and 8 did nothing. The Reviewers' reasons for not using the trial registry information included a lack of registration number in the manuscript (n = 132; 34.2%), lack of time (n = 128; 33.2%), lack of usefulness of registered information for Peer Review (n = 100; 25.9%), lack of awareness about registries (n = 54; 14%), and excessive complexity of the Process (n = 39; 10.1%). Conclusion This survey revealed that only one-third of the Peer Reviewers surveyed examined registered trial information and reported any discrepancies to journal editors.