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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Double-blind peer review (DBPR; reviewers blinded to author identities and vice versa) aims to reduce biases. The effectiveness of DBPR has not been studied in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep journals.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>What was the causal effect on bias of DBPR at CHEST?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>From January 2020 to 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. The co-primary exposures were first and last author gender; author residence in English-fluent countries was considered as a secondary exposure. To estimate DBPR's differential impact according to exposure, multivariable regression models were constructed with triple interaction terms (eg, author gender × CHEST vs AATS × pre- vs post-DBPR), all component factors (eg, author gender), paired interactions (eg, author gender × CHEST vs AATS), and covariables (year, topic).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 4,651 manuscripts (CHEST, 3,494; AATS, 1,157) sent for peer review; 4,645 (99.9%) had identifiable author gender. From 2020 to 2024, CHEST submissions (compared with AATS) were less frequently authored by women (first, 38.7% vs 45.5% [standardized mean difference (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). Following adjustment, no difference was appreciated in the impact of DBPR on acceptance for women vs men authors (first, -7.4 [95% CI, -20.9 to 6.0] percentage points [P = .28]; last, -10.1 [95% CI, -25.1 to 5.0] percentage points [P = .19]). DBPR negatively affected first (but not last) authors from English-fluent countries (vs non-fluent, -16.8 [95% CI, -32.1 to -1.6] percentage points; P = .030).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>DBPR did not differentially affect authors by gender but did by presumed English fluency.</p>","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. The effectiveness of DBPR 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 to 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. The co-primary exposures were first and last author gender; author residence in English-fluent countries was considered as a secondary exposure. To estimate DBPR's differential impact according to exposure, multivariable regression models were constructed with triple interaction terms (eg, author gender × CHEST vs AATS × pre- vs post-DBPR), all component factors (eg, author gender), paired interactions (eg, author gender × CHEST vs AATS), and covariables (year, topic).
Results: The study included 4,651 manuscripts (CHEST, 3,494; AATS, 1,157) sent for peer review; 4,645 (99.9%) had identifiable author gender. From 2020 to 2024, CHEST submissions (compared with AATS) were less frequently authored by women (first, 38.7% vs 45.5% [standardized mean difference (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). Following adjustment, no difference was appreciated in the impact of DBPR on acceptance for women vs men authors (first, -7.4 [95% CI, -20.9 to 6.0] percentage points [P = .28]; last, -10.1 [95% CI, -25.1 to 5.0] percentage points [P = .19]). DBPR negatively affected first (but not last) authors from English-fluent countries (vs non-fluent, -16.8 [95% CI, -32.1 to -1.6] percentage points; P = .030).
Interpretation: DBPR did not differentially affect authors by gender but did by presumed English fluency.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
