Literature DB >> 31209769

Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.

Jovan Shopovski1, Cezary Bolek2, Monika Bolek3.   

Abstract

Peer review is widely recognized as a mechanism for quality control of academic content. This research article aims at comparing the review reports and decisions of reviewers who are members of the editorial board of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ) with those reviewers suggested by the authors and who are not affiliated with the journal. 457 review reports on 378 papers submitted to the ESJ in the period of October-December 2017 were analysed. Statistical methods including OLS and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied based on the score approach toward the reviewers' assessments of the papers and their characteristics related to the country, gender, and time of revisions. Results show the difference between the decisions these two groups of reviewers made. Even though editor-suggested and author-suggested reviewers need equal time to review a paper, the former are less favourable towards the authors of the papers. It is also concluded that factors such as time and country of the reviewers influence their decisions. In this regard, the editors should avoid relying their decisions solely on review reports received from reviewers suggested by the authors. However, further research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

Keywords:  Academia; Academic publishing; Peer review; Review reports; Reviewers

Year:  2019        PMID: 31209769     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00118-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  11 in total

1.  A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.

Authors:  J J Earnshaw; J R Farndon; P J Guillou; C D Johnson; J A Murie; G D Murray
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson; Philip Alderson; Elizabeth Wager; Frank Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Peer-review: let's imitate the lawyers!

Authors:  Marko Jelicic; Harald Merckelbach
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.027

4.  The history of the peer-review process.

Authors:  Ray Spier
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 19.536

5.  Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Leanne Tite; Andrew Hutchings; Nick Black
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.

Authors:  Frederick P Rivara; Peter Cummings; Sarah Ringold; Abraham B Bergman; Alain Joffe; Dimitri A Christakis
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.406

7.  Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.

Authors:  Jessica L Moore; Eric G Neilson; Vivian Siegel
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 10.121

8.  Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Aceil Al-Khatib
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 9.  Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

Authors:  Richard Smith
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 18.000

10.  Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.

Authors:  Lutz Bornmann; Hans-Dieter Daniel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.