基于Publons的医学领域审稿人群体特征研究

Community characteristics of reviewers in medical field based on Publons

【目的】基于Publons大数据分析医学领域审稿人群体特征,以期为我国英文医学期刊同行评议提供参考。【方法】采集Publons平台所属领域为Clinical Medicine的全部期刊的审稿人信息,包括研究领域、所在国家/地区、发表论文数、被引频次、H指数、审稿次数、审稿期刊数等。利用SPSS 26.0统计软件描述性分析审稿人及其审稿行为特征;比较不同特征审稿人的审稿行为差异;探讨审稿人文献计量学指标与审稿行为特征内在关联。【结果】75.2%的审稿人有1~4个研究领域,83.1%审稿期刊数为1~3种。填写所在国家/地区的79424名审稿人中,56.1%来自11个发达国家;与非发达国家/地区审稿人相比,其发表论文数量更多、影响力更大,审稿意见更长、审稿次数和审稿期刊数更多。审稿人学术影响力与审稿次数、审稿意见长度呈正相关。审稿期刊数>10种、过去1年审稿次数>50次的审稿人论文产出多、学术影响力大、审稿积极。【结论】医学领域审稿人呈研究领域数、审稿期刊数集中分布,但国家/地区分布不均的特征。审稿人特征可一定程度反映其审稿行为特征,帮助编辑识别合适的审稿人。

[Purposes]Based on big data analysis from Publons,this study aims to characterize the reviewer community in the medical field,thus providing insights for peer review in English medical journals in China.[Methods]We collected data of reviewers affiliated with journals categorized under Clinical Medicine on Publons,including research areas,country/region,number of published papers,citation frequency,H-index,number of reviews,and number of reviewed journals.We conducted a descriptive analysis with SPSS 26.0 to delineate reviewer and review activity characteristics.We compared differences in review activities among reviewers with distinct characteristics while investigating the inherent correlations between bibliometric indicators and the characteristics of review activity.[Findings]75.2%of reviewers have registered 1-4 research areas,and 83.1%have reviewed for 1-3 different journals.Among the 79424 reviewers who provide their country/region information,56.1%are from 11 developed countries.Compared to reviewers from other countries/regions,these reviewers have more paper outputs,greater academic influence,and longer review comments.They review more frequently and across a larger number of journals.The academic influence of reviewers positively correlates with review frequency and length of review comments.Reviewers who have reviewed for more than 10 different journals and conducted more than 50 reviews during the past year demonstrate higher publication output,greater academic influence,and active reviewing engagement.[Conclusions]Reviewers in the medical field exhibit concentrated distributions in terms of number of research areas and reviews,but disparities exist in their country/region distributions.Reviewer characteristics can reflect their review activity characteristics to some extent,aiding editors in identifying suitable reviewers.