Estimating the Causal Effect of Double-Blind Peer Review for a Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Journal.

IF 9.5 1区医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Chest Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.016

Hayley B Gershengorn, Kelly C Vranas, Colin R Cooke, Christopher G Slatore, Stephanie M Levine

{"title":"Estimating the Causal Effect of Double-Blind Peer Review for a Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Journal.","authors":"Hayley B Gershengorn, Kelly C Vranas, Colin R Cooke, Christopher G Slatore, Stephanie M Levine","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Double-blind peer review (DBPR, reviewers blinded to author identities and vice-versa) aims to reduce biases. DBPR's effectiveness has not been studied in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep journals.Research question: What was the causal effect on bias of DBPR at CHEST?Study design and methods: From January 2020 - June 2022, CHEST and Annals of the American Thoracic Society (AATS) used single-blind peer review (reviewers concealed from authors only); in July 2022, CHEST switched to DBPR. We estimated the causal effect of DBPR on manuscript acceptance at CHEST using AATS as a control. Our co-primary exposures were first and last author gender; secondarily, we considered author residence in English fluent countries. To estimate DBPR's differential impact by exposure, we constructed multivariable regression models with triple interaction terms (e.g., author gender X CHEST vs AATS X pre- vs post-DBPR), all component factors (e.g., author gender), paired interactions (e.g., author gender X CHEST vs AATS), and covariables (year, topic).Results: We included 4,651 manuscripts (CHEST: 3,494; AATS: 1,157) sent for peer-review; 4,645 (99.9%) had identifiable author gender. From 2020-2024, CHEST submissions (compared to AATS) were less frequently authored by women (first: 38.7% vs 45.5%, SMD = 0.14; last: 23.9% vs 31.2% SMD = 0.16) or people from English fluent countries (first: 56.0% vs 77.7%, SMD = 0.47; last: 57.9% vs 79.0%, SMD = 0.47), and acceptance rates were lower (30.7% vs 48.4%, SMD = 0.37). After adjustment, no difference was appreciated in DBPR's impact on acceptance for women vs men authors (first: -7.4 [95% CI: -20.9 - 6.0] percentage points, p=0.28; last: -10.1 [-25.1 - 5.0] percentage points, p=0.19). DBPR negatively impacted first (but not last) authors from English fluent countries (vs non-fluent: -16.8 [-32.1 - -1.6] percentage points, p=0.030).Interpretation: DBPR did not differentially impact authors by gender but did by presumed English fluency.","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Double-blind peer review (DBPR, reviewers blinded to author identities and vice-versa) aims to reduce biases. DBPR's effectiveness has not been studied in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep journals.

Research question: What was the causal effect on bias of DBPR at CHEST?

Study design and methods: From January 2020 - June 2022, CHEST and Annals of the American Thoracic Society (AATS) used single-blind peer review (reviewers concealed from authors only); in July 2022, CHEST switched to DBPR. We estimated the causal effect of DBPR on manuscript acceptance at CHEST using AATS as a control. Our co-primary exposures were first and last author gender; secondarily, we considered author residence in English fluent countries. To estimate DBPR's differential impact by exposure, we constructed multivariable regression models with triple interaction terms (e.g., author gender X CHEST vs AATS X pre- vs post-DBPR), all component factors (e.g., author gender), paired interactions (e.g., author gender X CHEST vs AATS), and covariables (year, topic).

Results: We included 4,651 manuscripts (CHEST: 3,494; AATS: 1,157) sent for peer-review; 4,645 (99.9%) had identifiable author gender. From 2020-2024, CHEST submissions (compared to AATS) were less frequently authored by women (first: 38.7% vs 45.5%, SMD = 0.14; last: 23.9% vs 31.2% SMD = 0.16) or people from English fluent countries (first: 56.0% vs 77.7%, SMD = 0.47; last: 57.9% vs 79.0%, SMD = 0.47), and acceptance rates were lower (30.7% vs 48.4%, SMD = 0.37). After adjustment, no difference was appreciated in DBPR's impact on acceptance for women vs men authors (first: -7.4 [95% CI: -20.9 - 6.0] percentage points, p=0.28; last: -10.1 [-25.1 - 5.0] percentage points, p=0.19). DBPR negatively impacted first (but not last) authors from English fluent countries (vs non-fluent: -16.8 [-32.1 - -1.6] percentage points, p=0.030).

Interpretation: DBPR did not differentially impact authors by gender but did by presumed English fluency.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Chest 医学-呼吸系统

CiteScore

13.70

自引率

3.10%

发文量

3369

审稿时长

15 days

期刊介绍： At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.