Table 3.
Views on biomedical journal peer review (all respondents, n = 1,340)
| How much do you agree with the following statements?* |
Strongly disagree/disagree n (%) |
Neutral n (%) |
Strongly agree/agree n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
I) Positive views of the review process |
|
|
|
| Biomedical journal peer review is fair. |
304 (22.7) |
387 (28.9) |
649 (48.4) |
| Biomedical journal peer review is transparent. |
610 (45.5) |
393 (29.3) |
337 (25.1) |
| Biomedical journal peer review is scientific. |
304 (22.) |
399 (29.8) |
637 (47.5) |
| Authors should remain anonymous. |
296 (22.1) |
264 (19.7) |
780 (58.2) |
| Reviewers should remain anonymous. |
271 (20.2) |
204 (15.2) |
865 (64.4) |
| Reviewers are competent in general. |
306 (22.8) |
503 (37.5) |
531 (39.6) |
|
II) Conflict of interest (COI) |
|
|
|
| Reviewers are not required to declare COI. |
1125 (84.0) |
100 (7.5) |
115 (8.6) |
| The journal review process ensures my article to be free from interference of competitors and people with COI. |
659 (49.2) |
426 (31.8) |
255 (19.0) |
|
III) Communication |
|
|
|
| After receiving an article, the editors should give every article a fair chance by sending to peer review and avoiding personal bias. |
244 (18.2) |
506 (37.8) |
590 (44.0%) |
| After receiving reviewers’ feedbacks, editors should screen for unfair reviewers’ comments. |
285 (21.3) |
446 (33.3) |
609 (45.4) |
| Every biomedical journal should provide an appeal system for authors when their articles are unfairly rejected. | 198 (14.8) | 235 (17.5) | 907 (67.7) |
Items are presented in the order of appearance in the questionnaire.
Percentages sum to 100%.
*Responses on a 5-point Likert Scale: 1, very rare; 2, infrequent; 3, sometimes; 4, frequent; 5, All the time.