Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Background: Ratings in journal peer review can be affected by sources of bias. The bias variable investigated here was the information on whether authors had suggested a possible reviewer for their manuscript, and whether the editor had taken up that suggestion or had chosen a reviewer that had not been suggested by the authors. Studies have shown that authorsuggested reviewers rate manuscripts more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers do. Methodology/Principal Findings: Reviewers ’ ratings on three evaluation criteria and the reviewers ’ final publication recommendations were available for 552 manuscripts (in total 1145 reviews) that were submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an interactive open access journal using public peer review (authors ’ and reviewers ’ comments are publicly exchanged). Public peer review is supposed to bring a new openness to the reviewing process that will enhance its objectivity. In the statistical analysis the quality of a manuscript was controlled for to prevent favorable reviewers ’ ratings from being attributable to quality instead of to the bias variable. Conclusions/Significance: Our results agree with those from other studies that editor-suggested reviewers rated manuscripts between 30 % and 42 % less favorably than author-suggested reviewers. Against this backdrop journal editors should consider either doing without the use of author-suggested reviewers or, if they are used, bringing in more than one editor-suggested reviewer for the review process (so that the review by author-suggested reviewers can be put i

Mechanisms of T cell organotropism

F.M.M.-B. is supported by the British Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council of the UK and the Gates Foundation