The role of author identities in peer review.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
15
02
2023
accepted:
08
05
2023
medline:
23
6
2023
pubmed:
21
6
2023
entrez:
21
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is widespread debate on whether to anonymize author identities in peer review. The key argument for anonymization is to mitigate bias, whereas arguments against anonymization posit various uses of author identities in the review process. The Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) 2023 conference adopted a middle ground by initially anonymizing the author identities from reviewers, revealing them after the reviewer had submitted their initial reviews, and allowing the reviewer to change their review subsequently. We present an analysis of the reviews pertaining to the identification and use of author identities. Our key findings are: (I) A majority of reviewers self-report not knowing and being unable to guess the authors' identities for the papers they were reviewing. (II) After the initial submission of reviews, 7.1% of reviews changed their overall merit score and 3.8% changed their self-reported reviewer expertise. (III) There is a very weak and statistically insignificant correlation of the rank of authors' affiliations with the change in overall merit; there is a weak but statistically significant correlation with respect to change in reviewer expertise. We also conducted an anonymous survey to obtain opinions from reviewers and authors. The main findings from the 200 survey responses are: (i) A vast majority of participants favor anonymizing author identities in some form. (ii) The "middle-ground" initiative of ITCS 2023 was appreciated. (iii) Detecting conflicts of interest is a challenge that needs to be addressed if author identities are anonymized. Overall, these findings support anonymization of author identities in some form (e.g., as was done in ITCS 2023), as long as there is a robust and efficient way to check conflicts of interest.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37342992
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286206
pii: PONE-D-23-04499
pmc: PMC10284400
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0286206Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Nihar B. Shah. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Apr;94(4):670-676
pubmed: 30797567
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1315-6
pubmed: 27673310
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):243-5
pubmed: 9676669
JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1675-80
pubmed: 16609089
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2
pubmed: 9676668
Res Eval. 2017 Jan;26(1):1-14
pubmed: 28458466
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):137-8
pubmed: 8015125
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Oct 11;119(41):e2205779119
pubmed: 36194633
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):143-6
pubmed: 8015127
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jan;65(1):47-52
pubmed: 21831594
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov 28;114(48):12708-12713
pubmed: 29138317