肺、重症监护和睡眠医学杂志双盲同行评议的因果效应估计。

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":"肺、重症监护和睡眠医学杂志双盲同行评议的因果效应估计。","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. 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.","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":"{\"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. 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.\",\"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}","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

摘要

背景：双盲同行评议（DBPR，审稿人不知道作者身份，反之亦然）旨在减少偏见。DBPR的有效性尚未在肺病、重症监护和睡眠期刊中进行研究。研究问题：胸腔镜下DBPR偏倚的因果关系是什么？研究设计和方法：从2020年1月至2022年6月，CHEST和美国胸科学会年鉴（AATS）采用单盲同行评审（审稿人仅对作者保密）；2022年7月，CHEST改为DBPR。我们以AATS作为对照，估计了DBPR对CHEST论文接受度的因果效应。我们的共同主要暴露是第一作者和最后作者的性别；其次，我们考虑作者居住在英语流利的国家。为了估计暴露对DBPR的差异影响，我们构建了多变量回归模型，其中包含三重相互作用项（例如，作者性别X CHEST vs AATS X DBPR前后）、所有组成因素（例如，作者性别）、成对相互作用（例如，作者性别X CHEST vs AATS）和协变量（年份、主题）。结果：我们纳入了4651篇手稿(CHEST: 3494篇；AATS: 1157)送去同行评审；4645人（99.9%）有明确的作者性别。从2020-2024年，女性提交的CHEST（与AATS相比）较少(第一：38.7% vs 45.5%, SMD = 0.14；最后：23.9% vs 31.2%, SMD = 0.16)或来自英语流利国家的人(第一：56.0% vs 77.7%, SMD = 0.47；最后：57.9% vs 79.0%, SMD = 0.47)，接受率较低（30.7% vs 48.4%, SMD = 0.37）。调整后，DBPR对女性和男性作者接受度的影响没有差异(第一次：-7.4 [95% CI: -20.9 - 6.0]个百分点，p=0.28；最后：-10.1[-25.1 - 5.0]个百分点，p=0.19)。DBPR首先（但不是最后）对英语流利国家的作者产生负面影响（相对于英语不流利的国家：-16.8[-32.1 - -1.6]个百分点，p=0.030）。解释：DBPR对作者的影响没有性别差异，但对假定的英语流利程度有影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。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.