Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.

Peer review declaration (STACLIM 2021)

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind The review process is conducted in single-blind method that the reviewers have access to the name(s) of author(s) while author is not being informed on the name of the reviewer(s). • Conference submission management system: EDAS Conference and Journal Management System Link: https://edas.info/index.php?c=28219 • Number of submissions received: 110 (Total number of papers) • Number of submissions sent for review: 72 (Final number of papers reviewed) • Number of submissions accepted: 60 (Final number of papers after acceptance) • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 54.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3.25 Each paper have gone through at least two stages of review, namely abstract review, and full manuscript review, while papers with major and minor revision received additional 1 to 2 rounds of reviews. • Total number of reviewers involved: 24 • Any additional info on review process: ∘ First-stage of peer review was done on the submitted abstract; only those which are accepted will be prompted for full paper submission. ∘ The full paper needed to achieve similarity index of less than 30% before it could be sent out for the second-stage rigorous peer review; only papers that have properly revised and addressed the comments from editors and reviewers could be accepted and proceeded for acceptance, hence publication in the IOP Conference series: Earth and Environmental Science. • Contact person for queries: Name: Dr Marlia Mohd Hanafiah Affiliation: Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email : [email protected] Name: Dr Rawshan Ara Begum Affiliation: Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email : [email protected] Name: Dr Maggie Chel Gee Ooi Affiliation: Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email : [email protected]

Meta-analysis of AKI to CKD transition in perioperative patients

Background Recent research shows AKI increases the risk of incident CKD. We hypothesized that perioperative AKI may confer increased risk of subsequent CKD compared to nonperioperative AKI. Methods A MEDLINE search was performed for “AKI, CKD, chronic renal insufficiency, surgery, and perioperative” and related terms yielded 5209 articles. One thousand sixty-five relevant studies were reviewed. One thousand six were excluded because they were review, animal, or pediatric studies. Fifty-nine studies underwent full manuscript review by two independent evaluators. Seventeen met all inclusion criteria and underwent analysis. Two-by-two tables were constructed from AKI +/− and CKD +/− data. The R package metafor was employed to determine odds ratio (OR), and a random-effects model was used to calculate weighted ORs. Leave-1-out, funnel analysis, and structured analysis were used to estimate effects of study heterogeneity and bias. Results Nonperioperative studies included studies of oncology, percutaneous coronary intervention, and myocardial infarction patients. Perioperative studies comprised patients from cardiac surgery, vascular surgery, and burns. There was significant heterogeneity, but risk of bias was overall assessed as low. The OR for AKI versus non-AKI patients developing CKD in all studies was 4.31 (95% CI 3.01–6.17; p < 0.01). Nonperioperative subjects demonstrated OR 3.32 for developing CKD compared to non-AKI patients (95% CI 2.06–5.34; p < 0.01) while perioperative patients demonstrated OR 5.20 (95% CI 3.12–8.66; p < 0.01) for the same event. Conclusions We conclude that studies conducted in perioperative and nonperioperative patient populations suggest similar risk of development of CKD after AKI.

The American Review of Public Administration: A Biography

This article is an intellectual history of the noble endeavors and challenges involved in the creation and evolution of the American Review of Public Administration. It traces the journal’s development from its beginning as the Midwest Review of Public Administration ( MRPA) under the leadership of Park College professor Jerzy Hauptmann, a Polish intellectual who entered the United States at the end of World War II. Hauptmann launched MRPA with a regional focus, welcoming contributions from a variety of voices in public service–related occupations. A political scientist suspicious of the power of national governments, Hauptmann favored a less top-down regional approach. The article provides insights from the late 1960s into the growing field of public administration. Behind the scenes, the article chronicles the financial challenges, details of manuscript review processes, and more in an initially low-technology world. This history is also multi-institutional, detailing the journal’s transfer from a small college to a team of scholars, including coauthor John Clayton Thomas, at the three public administration programs of the University of Missouri—in Columbia, Kansas City, and St. Louis. We are indebted to our now-departed colleague and coauthor, George Frederickson, for the idea of writing this article.

A systematic review of patient baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcomes of combined transcatheter valvular interventions.

Background Valvular heart pathologies remain amongst the most encountered conditions surgeons and interventionists face today. Multi-valve procedures exhibit higher operative mortality than do single valve procedures, with a mortality rate that is double its counterpart. Up until recently, surgical repair was the gold standard for most diseased valves. With the advent of new percutaneous and transcatheter technologies for valve replacement, many patients deemed inoperable due to prohibitively high surgical risk have been able to benefit from these new lesser invasive techniques. Currently, one systematic review article exists by Ando et al which included 37 studies and 60 patients and demonstrated reasonable clinical outcomes in patients undergoing combined transcatheter aortic and mitral valve intervention (CTAMVI). Since that original article, many new papers and studies have been published. We purpose an updated systematic review of all cases of combined percutaneous/transcatheter multi-valvular repairs.Methods An electronic search will be performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane through September 2020 to identify eligible observation studies and RCTs. A complete electronic search will be conducted from January 1st 2000 to September 1st 2020 with Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane. All search results will be uploaded to COVIDENCE and screened by title or abstract and included for full manuscript review when it’s deemed relevant to the systematic review. All data will be abstracted into a dedicated excel spreadsheet and used for further data analysis. Demographic information such as patient’s age, sex and location will be extracted. Further information such as performed procedure, surgical risk, whether procedures were done simultaneously or staged, deployed device and clinical outcomes will be extracted as well. Discussion Within the medical literature, there is limited data available regarding combined transcatheter aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valve intervention. This is an attractive alternative in high-surgical risk patients with combined valvular disease. However, its procedural details and clinical outcomes have not been well described in any current medical guidelines. Through our systematic review we will be able to better elucidate and a establish strategies for undergoing transcatheter interventions in high risk patients who require multi-valvular repair.