J Korean Med Sci.  2023 Aug;38(33):e256. 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e256.

Prejudice, Interests, Jealousy: Inappropriate Peer Reviewers May Be Exacerbating Inequality in Academic Publication in Health Research

• Hu X

• KMID: 2545208
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e256

Reference

1. Amaral OB. To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature. 2022; 611(7937):637. PMID: 36418447.

2. Mastroianni A. The rise and fall of peer review. experimental history. Updated 2022. Accessed February 26, 2023. https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review .

3. Sharma D. A call for reforms in global health publications. Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9(7):e901–e902. PMID: 34143988.

4. Harris M, Macinko J, Jimenez G, Mullachery P. Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test. Global Health. 2017; 13(1):80. PMID: 29110668.

5. Cash-Gibson L, Rojas-Gualdrón DF, Pericàs JM, Benach J. Inequalities in global health inequalities research: a 50-year bibliometric analysis (1966-2015). PLoS One. 2018; 13(1):e0191901. PMID: 29385197.

6. Fox CW, Meyer J, Aimé E. Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal. Funct Ecol. 2023; 37(5):1144–1157.

7. Mehregan M. Ethical reviewers are essential for scholarly journals for timely processing of submissions and avoiding retractions. J Korean Med Sci. 2019; 34(5):e41. PMID: 30718993.

8. Campos-Arceiz A, Primack RB, Koh LP. Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? Biol Conserv. 2015; 186:22–27.

9. Wohlrabe K, Bürgi C. What is the benefit from publishing a working paper in a journal in terms of citations? Evidence from economic. Scientometrics. 2021; 126(6):4701–4714.

10. Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1):322. PMID: 30659186.

11. Jorm AF. Publons as a source of high volume, poorly targeted reviewer requests: the need for better standards of practice by publishers. Learn Publ. 2022; 35(2):285–287.

12. Forrester N. Fed up and burnt out: ‘quiet quitting’ hits academia. Nature. 2023; 615(7953):751–753. PMID: 36869111.

13. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021; 6(1):14. PMID: 34776003.

14. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS One. 2016; 11(11):e0166387. PMID: 27832157.

15. Baker M. Smart software spots statistical errors in psychology papers. Nature. 2015.

16. Memon AR. Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(27):e217. PMID: 32657084.

17. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(4):360–364. PMID: 25829801.

18. Hong ST. Appreciation of invisible intellectual contributions. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(7):e70.

19. Barroga E. Innovative strategies for peer review. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(20):e138. PMID: 32449322.

20. Ahmed S, Yessirkepov M. Peer reviewers in central Asia: Publons based analysis. J Korean Med Sci. 2021; 36(25):e169. PMID: 34184435.