FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1985677570> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1985677570 endingPage "946" @default.
• W1985677570 startingPage "940" @default.
• W1985677570 abstract "PurposePeer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (“Red Journal”) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions.Methods and MaterialsIn May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review.ResultsQuestionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index.ConclusionsIn a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong. Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (“Red Journal”) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions. In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review. Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index. In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong." @default.
• W1985677570 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5011546832 @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5036507987 @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5060154529 @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5062118116 @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5069333303 @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5076942113 @default.
• W1985677570 creator A5076973801 @default.
• W1985677570 date "2014-08-01" @default.
• W1985677570 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1985677570 title "Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty" @default.
• W1985677570 cites W1971896716 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W1987965558 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2003537372 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2017899036 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2023854431 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2032688904 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2035107765 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2035745790 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2047081701 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2050257765 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2078020500 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2083567045 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2096384095 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2109561464 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W2109976502 @default.
• W1985677570 cites W4301115652 @default.
• W1985677570 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021" @default.
• W1985677570 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25035195" @default.
• W1985677570 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1985677570 type Work @default.
• W1985677570 sameAs 1985677570 @default.
• W1985677570 citedByCount "26" @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702014 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702015 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702016 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702017 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702018 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702019 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702020 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702021 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702022 @default.
• W1985677570 countsByYear W19856775702023 @default.
• W1985677570 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5011546832 @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5036507987 @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5060154529 @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5062118116 @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5069333303 @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5076942113 @default.
• W1985677570 hasAuthorship W1985677570A5076973801 @default.
• W1985677570 hasBestOaLocation W19856775701 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C20387591 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C2771230 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C2778223634 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C126322002 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C15744967 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C20387591 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C2771230 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C2778223634 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C512399662 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C535046627 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C71924100 @default.
• W1985677570 hasConceptScore W1985677570C73484699 @default.
• W1985677570 hasFunder F4320306095 @default.
• W1985677570 hasFunder F4320314458 @default.
• W1985677570 hasFunder F4320332161 @default.
• W1985677570 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1985677570 hasLocation W19856775701 @default.
• W1985677570 hasLocation W19856775702 @default.
• W1985677570 hasOpenAccess W1985677570 @default.
• W1985677570 hasPrimaryLocation W19856775701 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W132833722 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W1926680241 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W1957331567 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W2084811240 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W2134315029 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W2749462268 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W2944980999 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W2983666989 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W3033540421 @default.
• W1985677570 hasRelatedWork W935643623 @default.
• W1985677570 hasVolume "89" @default.
• W1985677570 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1985677570 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1985677570 magId "1985677570" @default.
• W1985677570 workType "article" @default.