Research into peer review and scientific publication: Journals look in the mirror

2002 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Callaham
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Publication

scholarly journals Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1242-1259
Author(s):  
Lutz Bornmann ◽  
Sitaram Devarakonda ◽  
Alexander Tekles ◽  
George Chacko
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Review System ◽  
New Family ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Better Than

Recently, Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019) proposed a new family of indicators, which measure whether a scientific publication is disruptive to a field or tradition of research. Such disruptive influences are characterized by citations to a focal paper, but not its cited references. In this study, we are interested in the question of convergent validity. We used external criteria of newness to examine convergent validity: In the postpublication peer review system of F1000Prime, experts assess papers whether the reported research fulfills these criteria (e.g., reports new findings). This study is based on 120,179 papers from F1000Prime published between 2000 and 2016. In the first part of the study we discuss the indicators. Based on the insights from the discussion, we propose alternate variants of disruption indicators. In the second part, we investigate the convergent validity of the indicators and the (possibly) improved variants. Although the results of a factor analysis show that the different variants measure similar dimensions, the results of regression analyses reveal that one variant ( DI5) performs slightly better than the others.

scholarly journals Ninth international congress on peer review and scientific publication: call for research

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5475 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P A Ioannidis ◽  
Michael Berkwits ◽  
Annette Flanagin ◽  
Fiona Godlee ◽  
Theodora Bloom
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
International Congress

scholarly journals Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (54) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Henning Bergenholtz ◽  
Rufus Gouws
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Scientific Outputs ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Important Quality

<p>In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author.</p>

Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 11-15
Author(s):  
Meghan McDevitt ◽  
◽  
Stephanie Kinnan ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
International Congress

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

2015 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 597-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina Ferreira ◽  
Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau ◽  
Amanda M. Bennett ◽  
E. Hance Ellington ◽  
Christine Terwissen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Directional Selection

scholarly journals The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11999
Author(s):  
Akira Matsui ◽  
Emily Chen ◽  
Yunwen Wang ◽  
Emilio Ferrara
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Latent Dirichlet Allocation ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Indispensable Tool ◽  
The Impact

The peer-reviewing process has long been regarded as an indispensable tool in ensuring the quality of a scientific publication. While previous studies have tried to understand the process as a whole, not much effort has been devoted to investigating the determinants and impacts of the content of the peer review itself. This study leverages open data from nearly 5,000 PeerJ publications that were eventually accepted. Using sentiment analysis, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, mixed linear regression models, and logit regression models, we examine how the peer-reviewing process influences the acceptance timeline and contribution potential of manuscripts, and what modifications were typically made to manuscripts prior to publication. In an open review paradigm, our findings indicate that peer reviewers’ choice to reveal their names in lieu of remaining anonymous may be associated with more positive sentiment in their review, implying possible social pressure from name association. We also conduct a taxonomy of the manuscript modifications during a revision, studying the words added in response to peer reviewer feedback. This study provides insights into the content of peer reviews and the subsequent modifications authors make to their manuscripts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document