Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study
<h3 dir="ltr">Background</h3><p dir="ltr">Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals’ peer review. This study aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of (un)blinding and the...
محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| مؤلفون آخرون: | , |
| منشور في: |
2025
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
| _version_ | 1864513521275895808 |
|---|---|
| author | Seba Qussini (16727773) |
| author2 | Farizah Mezer Anami (23770905) Kris Dierickx (7131551) |
| author2_role | author author |
| author_facet | Seba Qussini (16727773) Farizah Mezer Anami (23770905) Kris Dierickx (7131551) |
| author_role | author |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | Seba Qussini (16727773) Farizah Mezer Anami (23770905) Kris Dierickx (7131551) |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv | 2025-12-07T03:00:00Z |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | 10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625 |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv | https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Rethinking_un_blinding_in_biomedical_proposal_peer_review_A_multi-stakeholder_qualitative_study/32075526 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv | Biomedical and clinical sciences Clinical sciences Commerce, management, tourism and services Strategy, management and organisational behaviour Proposals’ peer review open science movement open peer review (un)blinding qualitative research |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | Text Journal contribution info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion text contribution to journal |
| description | <h3 dir="ltr">Background</h3><p dir="ltr">Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals’ peer review. This study aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of (un)blinding and the implications of open peer review for biomedical proposals’ peer review.</p><h3 dir="ltr">Methods</h3><p dir="ltr">We conducted a generic descriptive qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm, using semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar. Transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the 6-step thematic framework analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked to rate 7 quantitative statements to supplement the qualitative data.</p><h3 dir="ltr">Results</h3><p dir="ltr">Codes with shared characteristics were grouped into categories, and ultimately three themes were generated: (1) the importance of increased transparency in fund allocation procedures while maintaining blinded reviewers’ identities, (2) open peer review as a feasible approach for enhancing transparency and accountability in proposals’ peer review, and (3) a growing critical stance toward traditional peer review systems.</p><h3 dir="ltr">Conclusion</h3><p dir="ltr">While there remains a strong preference for double-blinded review within the context of our study, its limitations have become evident—particularly given current funding challenges. These shortcomings highlight the need for greater openness in peer review and increased transparency in fund allocation processes.</p><h2 dir="ltr">Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Accountability in Research<br>License: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625" target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625</a></p> |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| id | Manara2_c822b429053edb09092fa9f56160898c |
| identifier_str_mv | 10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625 |
| network_acronym_str | Manara2 |
| network_name_str | Manara2 |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:figshare.com:article/32075526 |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv | |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv | |
| repository_id_str | |
| rights_invalid_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 |
| spelling | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative studySeba Qussini (16727773)Farizah Mezer Anami (23770905)Kris Dierickx (7131551)Biomedical and clinical sciencesClinical sciencesCommerce, management, tourism and servicesStrategy, management and organisational behaviourProposals’ peer reviewopen science movementopen peer review(un)blindingqualitative research<h3 dir="ltr">Background</h3><p dir="ltr">Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals’ peer review. This study aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of (un)blinding and the implications of open peer review for biomedical proposals’ peer review.</p><h3 dir="ltr">Methods</h3><p dir="ltr">We conducted a generic descriptive qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm, using semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar. Transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the 6-step thematic framework analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked to rate 7 quantitative statements to supplement the qualitative data.</p><h3 dir="ltr">Results</h3><p dir="ltr">Codes with shared characteristics were grouped into categories, and ultimately three themes were generated: (1) the importance of increased transparency in fund allocation procedures while maintaining blinded reviewers’ identities, (2) open peer review as a feasible approach for enhancing transparency and accountability in proposals’ peer review, and (3) a growing critical stance toward traditional peer review systems.</p><h3 dir="ltr">Conclusion</h3><p dir="ltr">While there remains a strong preference for double-blinded review within the context of our study, its limitations have become evident—particularly given current funding challenges. These shortcomings highlight the need for greater openness in peer review and increased transparency in fund allocation processes.</p><h2 dir="ltr">Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Accountability in Research<br>License: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625" target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625</a></p>2025-12-07T03:00:00ZTextJournal contributioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontextcontribution to journal10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Rethinking_un_blinding_in_biomedical_proposal_peer_review_A_multi-stakeholder_qualitative_study/32075526CC BY 4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:figshare.com:article/320755262025-12-07T03:00:00Z |
| spellingShingle | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study Seba Qussini (16727773) Biomedical and clinical sciences Clinical sciences Commerce, management, tourism and services Strategy, management and organisational behaviour Proposals’ peer review open science movement open peer review (un)blinding qualitative research |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| title_full | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| title_fullStr | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| title_short | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| title_sort | Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study |
| topic | Biomedical and clinical sciences Clinical sciences Commerce, management, tourism and services Strategy, management and organisational behaviour Proposals’ peer review open science movement open peer review (un)blinding qualitative research |