Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/41814
Title: Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal
Authors: Domínguez-Berjón, María Felícitas
Godoy, Pere
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto
Negrín, Miguel Angel 
Vives-Cases, Carmen
Álvarez-Dardet, Carlos
Bermúdez-Tamayo, Clara
López, María José
Pérez, Glòria
Borrell, Carme
UNESCO Clasification: 32 Ciencias médicas
570106 Documentación
Keywords: Editorial policy
Gender
Peer review
Scientific publications
Issue Date: 2018
Journal: Accountability in Research 
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.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/41814
ISSN: 0898-9621
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1435280
Source: Accountability in Research [ISSN 0898-9621], v. 25 (2), p. 94-108
Appears in Collections:Reseña
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

5
checked on Feb 28, 2021

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

4
checked on Feb 14, 2021

Page view(s)

8
checked on Feb 27, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.