Alexander W Levis1, Albert F G Leentjens2, James L Levenson3, Mark A Lumley4, Brett D Thombs5. 1. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. 5. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. Electronic address: brett.thombs@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some peer reviewers may inappropriately, or coercively request that authors include references to the reviewers' own work. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether, compared to reviews for a journal with single-blind peer review, reviews for a journal with open peer review included (1) fewer self-citations; (2) a lower proportion of self-citations without a rationale; and (3) a lower ratio of proportions of citations without a rationale in self-citations versus citations to others' work. METHODS: Peer reviews for published manuscripts submitted in 2012 to a single-blind peer review journal, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, were previously evaluated (Thombs et al., 2015). These were compared to publically available peer reviews of manuscripts published in 2012 in an open review journal, BMC Psychiatry. Two investigators independently extracted data for both journals. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between journals in the proportion of all reviewer citations that were self-citations (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 71/225, 32%; BMC Psychiatry: 90/315, 29%; p=.50), or in the proportion of self-citations without a rationale (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 15/71, 21%; BMC Psychiatry: 12/90, 13%; p=.21). There was no significant difference between journals in the proportion of self-citations versus citations to others' work without a rationale (p=.31). CONCLUSION: Blind and open peer review methodologies have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The present study found that, in reasonably similar journals that use single-blind and open review, there were no substantive differences in the pattern of peer reviewer self-citations.
OBJECTIVE: Some peer reviewers may inappropriately, or coercively request that authors include references to the reviewers' own work. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether, compared to reviews for a journal with single-blind peer review, reviews for a journal with open peer review included (1) fewer self-citations; (2) a lower proportion of self-citations without a rationale; and (3) a lower ratio of proportions of citations without a rationale in self-citations versus citations to others' work. METHODS: Peer reviews for published manuscripts submitted in 2012 to a single-blind peer review journal, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, were previously evaluated (Thombs et al., 2015). These were compared to publically available peer reviews of manuscripts published in 2012 in an open review journal, BMC Psychiatry. Two investigators independently extracted data for both journals. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between journals in the proportion of all reviewer citations that were self-citations (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 71/225, 32%; BMC Psychiatry: 90/315, 29%; p=.50), or in the proportion of self-citations without a rationale (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 15/71, 21%; BMC Psychiatry: 12/90, 13%; p=.21). There was no significant difference between journals in the proportion of self-citations versus citations to others' work without a rationale (p=.31). CONCLUSION: Blind and open peer review methodologies have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The present study found that, in reasonably similar journals that use single-blind and open review, there were no substantive differences in the pattern of peer reviewer self-citations.