Abstract
Multistakeholder Perspectives on Current Attitudes Toward (Un)masking Reviewers’ Identity in Biomedical Research Proposals’ Peer Review: A Qualitative Study
Seba Qussini,1,2 Farizah Mezer Anami,2 Kris Dierickx1
Objective
Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and remain poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals’ peer review.1 This study aims to explore the diverse perspectives of stakeholders regarding the role of unmasking in funding proposals’ peer review and the implications of open peer review as part of the recent open science movement, specifically in biomedical research proposals’ peer review.
Design
To describe participants’ perspectives as constructed through their recent experiences, we have conducted a generic descriptive qualitative study2 within a constructivist paradigm, using semistructured interviews to gather insights from reviewers, applicants, and peer review scholars. A total of 23 participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar with whom no prior relationship had been established. Interviews were conducted between June 2024 and February 2025 by the first author (S.Q.). Transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the 6-step thematic framework analysis described by Braun and Clarke.3 Initially, autogenerated transcripts were read and checked for in-depth familiarization with the data, which was followed by a line-by-line inductive coding, conducted iteratively after each set of 2 interviews. We followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines.
Results
Codes with shared characteristics were grouped into categories, and ultimately 3 overarching themes were generated: (1) the importance of increased transparency in fund allocation procedures while maintaining anonymized reviewer identities; (2) open peer review as a feasible approach for enhancing transparency and accountability in funding proposals’ peer review; and (3) a growing critical stance toward traditional peer review systems, calling for alternative models like baseline or lottery funding procedures. Collectively, the results shed light on the perceived advantages and limitations of different peer review models and provide an understanding of how unmasking identities influences the fairness and objectivity of fund allocation decisions.
Conclusions
There is persistent preference for double-anonymous review among the scientific community; however, researchers are increasingly aware of the shortcoming of anonymized review, especially in light of current challenges within the funding landscape. Simultaneously, they recognize the importance of greater openness in peer review and increased transparency in fund allocation procedures.
References
1. Qussini S, MacDonald RS, Shahbal S, Dierickx K. Blinding models for scientific peer-review of biomedical research proposals: a systematic review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023;18(4):250-262. doi:10.1177/15562646231191424
2. Qussini S, Dierickx K. Multi-stakeholder perspectives on current attitudes toward (un)blinding reviewers’ identity in biomedical research proposals peer review: a qualitative study. OSF Registries. https://osf.io/dp65f
3. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Pos Psychol. 2017;12(3):297-298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
1Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, seba.qussini@student.kuleuven.be; 2Hamad Medical Corporation, The Medical Research Center, Doha, Qatar.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
None reported.
Funding/Support
The publication and conference fees will be funded by the Medical Research Center at Hamad Medical Corporation through grant MRC-01-24-305.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor
The Medical Research Center had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of this study.