Abstract:Abstract Background Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally. Methods A total of 28,009 biomedical academics from high-ranking universities listed by the 2009 Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS) World University Rankings were contacted by email between March 2010 and August 2010. 1,340 completed an online survey which focused on their academic background, negative experiences and views on biomedical journal peer review and the results were compared among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician scientists. Results Fewer than half of the respondents agreed that the peer review systems of biomedical journals were fair (48.4%), scientific (47.5%), or transparent (25.1%). Nevertheless, 58.2% of the respondents agreed that authors should remain anonymous and 64.4% agreed that reviewers should not be disclosed. Most, (67.7%) agreed to the establishment of an appeal system. The proportion of native English-speaking respondents who agreed that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than for non-native respondents (p = 0.02). Similarly, the proportion of clinicians stating that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than that for basic scientists and clinician-scientists (p = 0.004). For females, (β = −0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers’ comments (β = −0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (β = −0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that “the peer review system is fair”. Conclusion Academics are divided on the issue of whether the biomedical journal peer review system is fair, scientific and transparent. A majority of academics agreed with the double-blind peer review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals.

Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing

On The Peer Review Reports: Does Size Matter?

On the peer review reports: It's not the size that matters ... really?

Do conspicuous manuscripts experience shorter time in the duration of peer review?

Is peer review duration shorter for attractive manuscripts?

Four steps to realize effective peer review of academics journals published in China

Understanding Peer Review of Software Engineering Papers

A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review

Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation

Directionality of Paper Reviewing and Publishing of a Scientist: A Granger Causality Inference

Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future

Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice

Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts

Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies Via Simulation

Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on manuscripts' content

Peer Reviews of Peer Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Other Experiments

Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

Advantages and feasibility of double-blind peer-review for research articles

Peer Review and Medical Journals

Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data