Encouragement to contribute to peer-review process in clinical neurology journals

Objective: To determine whether the chance of peer-review assignment as expected from the amount of publications in “Japanese” and “Arabic” investigators differed from that for “Other” investigators in mainstream clinical neurology journals in 2004. Methods: Fifteen clinical neurology journals with the impact factor in 2004 greater than 2.5 and with the full list of reviewers available in public were analyzed. Thereby, “Japanese”, “Arabic”, and “Other” investigators were defined as those with Japanese-sounding last names, those with Arabic-sounding last names, and others. The ratio of number of reviewers to number of original articles was compared between “Japanese” and “Other” groups as well as “Arabic” and “Other” groups. In addition, we described how “Japanese” and “Arabic” investigators were assigned peer-review in Brain and Development in 2004. Results: In the above-mentioned 15 clinical neurology journals, the mean ratio of number of reviewers to number of original articles was smaller in “Japanese” compared to “Other” investigators (paired t-test: df = 14; t-value = 6.85; p-value < 0.001) but failed to demonstrate a difference in the mean ratio between “Arabic” and “Other” investigators (df = 11; t-value = −0.36; p = 0.7). In Brain and Development, the number of peer-reviewers relative to the amount of publications was larger in “Japanese” compared to “Other” group (Fisher’s exact probability test: p-value < 0.001). Conclusion: More “Japanese” investigators are encouraged to contribute to peer-review process in clinical neurology journals other than Brain and Development. More “Non-Japanese” investigators are encouraged to contribute to peer-review process in Brain and Development.