Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal.
Authors: Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón, María
Godoy, Pere
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto
Negrín, Miguel Ángel
Vives-Cases, Carmen
Álvarez-Dardet, Carlos
Bermúdez-Tamayo, Clara
López, María José
Pérez, Glòria
Borrell, Carme
Keywords: Editorial policy;gender;peer review;scientific publications
metadata.dc.subject.mesh: Editorial Policies
Peer Review, Research
Periodicals as Topic
Public Health
Qualitative Research
Sex Factors
Time Factors
Issue Date: 22-Feb-2018
Abstract: Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review. We carried out a descriptive analysis of these indicators and applied logistic regression to analyze factors (professional and research/review experience) associated with having done at least one review in 2014-2015. Results were stratified by sex. Journal editors sent 1,775 requests to 773 potential reviewers; 52.3% of whom reviewed at least one manuscript. Of the 396 declined requests (22.3%), the most common reasons were lack of time and of experience (88.1%). No differences were observed by sex. In the multivariate analysis, having reviewed for the journal in previous years showed the strongest association with acceptance. Specific analyses of data on requests reviewers may be useful for improving the acceptance rates to review. This study did not show gender differences in several indicators of the reviewing process.
metadata.dc.identifier.doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1435280
Appears in Collections:Producción 2020

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

This item is protected by original copyright

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons