Skip to main content
Insights into Imaging

Table 1 Subgroup analyses on the associations between the use of a single-blinded peer review system and a journal’s impact factor, between the presence of a reviewer recommendation option or obligation and a journal’s impact factor, and between the presence of a nonpreferred reviewer option and a journal’s impact factor

From: Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

 

Point-biserial correlation coefficient for the use of a single-blinded peer review system vs. a journal’s impact factor (p value)

Point-biserial correlation coefficient for the presence of a reviewer recommendation option or obligation vs. a journal’s impact factor (p value)

Point-biserial correlation coefficient for the presence of a nonpreferred reviewer option vs. a journal’s impact factor (p value)

All medical imaging journals (n = 119)

0.218 (p = 0.022)a

0.032 (p = 0.727)

0.064 (p = 0.492)

All medical imaging journals except radiotherapy journals, journals for physicists, engineers, and chemists, and journals related to a single country1 (n = 70)

0.220 (p = 0.777)b

 − 0.019 (p = 0.878)

0.036 (p = 0.770)

Only general medical imaging journals (n = 27)2

0.053 (p = 0.810)c

0.083 (p = 0.681)

0.249 (p  = 0.211)

Only subspecialty medical imaging journals (n = 41)3

0.354 (p = 0.025)d

 − 0.102 (p = 0.527)

 − 0.114 (p = 0.478)

Medical imaging journals with more than 1000 published articles per 2-year period (n = 36)4

0.286 (p = 0.964)e

0.130 (p = 0.448)

0.187 (p = 0.275)

Medical imaging journals with less than 1000 published articles per 2-year period (n = 34)4

0.180 (p = 0.341)f

 − 0.179 (p = 0.310)

 − 0.124 (p = 0.486)

  1. p value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (italics)
  2. 1Journals with a title that refers to a single country
  3. 2Excluding radiotherapy journals, journals for physicists, engineers, and chemists, journals related to a single country, and other journals that could not be classified as a general imaging journal
  4. 3Excluding radiotherapy journals, journals for physicists, engineers, and chemists, journals related to a single country, and other journals that could not be classified as a subspecialty journal
  5. 4Excluding radiotherapy journals, journals for physicists, engineers, and chemists, and journals related to a single country
  6. aFive journals were excluded from this analysis because their peer review model remained unclear, and one journal was excluded from this analysis because it used both a single-blinded and a double-blinded peer review model
  7. bFour journals were excluded from this analysis because their peer review model remained unclear, and one journal was excluded from this analysis because it used both a single-blinded and a double-blinded peer review model
  8. cThree journals were excluded from this analysis because their peer review model remained unclear, and one journal was excluded from this analysis because it used both a single-blinded and a double-blinded peer review model
  9. dOne journal was excluded from this analysis because its peer review model remained unclear
  10. eOne journal was excluded from this analysis because it used both a single-blinded and a double-blinded peer review model
  11. fFour journals were excluded from this analysis because their peer review model remained unclear
Back to article page