Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. SETTING: BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. SAMPLE: Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. RESULTS: For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.

Unpublished genomic data-how to share?

The field of genomics is often cited as the branch of biology that has led the way in data sharing. In most cases, sequencing data are made publicly available immediately after generation and often before the data generators have completed their analyses. Although the pros of such openness cannot be denied, problems can arise when unpublished genomic data are shared. In this editorial we touch on these issues and discuss the roles and responsibilities of the data generators, data users and journal editors.

Expression of concern: Subfunctionalization reduces the fitness cost of gene duplication in humans by buffering dosage imbalances.

After publication of this article (Fernandez et al., BMC Genomics 2011, 12:604) it was brought to the Editors' attention that the data generated by the first author, Ariel Fernandez, seemed anomalous. One of the author's institutions found that the data were not reproducible from the described methods, but an investigation by the author's other institution did not find the data or their interpretation suspicious. Given the conflicting conclusions of these investigations, the Editors advise the readers to interpret the data with due caution. We apologize to all affected parties.