Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 101-112

  Bravo, Giangiacomo ^a   Farjam, Mike ^a   Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco ^b   Birukou, Aliaksandr ^d   Squazzoni, Flaminio ^c  

^a LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

^d SPRINGER   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Author reputation; Bayesian network; Editorial bias; Network effects; Peer review

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

AUTHOR REPUTATION; EDITORIAL BIAS; NETWORK DEGREE; NETWORK EFFECTS; PEER REVIEW; POTENTIAL EFFECTS; SCHOLARLY JOURNALS;

COMPUTER NETWORKS;

EID: 85037810919     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Batagelj, V., Ferligoj, A., Squazzoni, F., The emergence of a field: A network analysis of research on peer review. Scientometrics 113:1 (2017), 503–532, 10.1007/s11192-017-2522-8.
2. Birukou, A., Wakeling, J.R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., Osman, N., Ragone, A., Sierra, C., Wassef, A., Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 2011, 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056.
3. Bornmann, L., Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45:1 (2011), 197–245, 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
4. Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D., Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics 3:4 (2009), 348–352 pii:S1751157709000406.
5. Bornmann, L., Williams, R., Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. Journal of Informetrics 11:3 (2017), 788–799 pii:S1751157717300378.
6. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., Dondio, P., Squazzoni, F., Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: The case of the journal of artificial societies and social simulation. Scientometrics, 2017, 10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1.
7. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., Squazzoni, F., Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:7 (2016), 1763–1771, 10.1002/asi.23665.
8. Cowley, S.J., How peer-review constrains cognition: On the frontline in the knowledge sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2015, 1706, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01706.
9. Edwards, M.A., Roy, S., Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34:1 (2017), 51–61, 10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
10. Faust, K., Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks 19:2 (1997), 157–191, 10.1016/s0378-8733(96)00300-0.
11. Friedman, N., Geiger, D., Goldszmidt, M., Bayesian network classifiers. Machine Learning 29:2–3 (1997), 131–163.
12. Fyfe, A., Journals, learned societies and money: Philosophical transactions, ca. 1750–1900. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 69:3 (2015), 277–299 http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/69/3/277.
13. García, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., Fdez-Valdivia, J., The author–editor game. Scientometrics 104:1 (2015), 361–380, 10.1007/s11192-015-1566-x.
14. Gelman, A., Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27:15 (2008), 2865–2873.
15. Grimaldo, F., Paolucci, M., A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review. Advances in Complex Systems, 16(07), 2013, 1350004, 10.1142/S0219525913500045.
16. Hsiehchen, D., Espinoza, M., Detecting editorial bias in medical publishing. Scientometrics 106:1 (2016), 453–456, 10.1007/s11192-015-1753-9.
17. Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., Trinquart, L., The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE 11:11 (2016), 1–14, 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.
18. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., Cronin, B., Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64:1 (2013), 2–17, 10.1002/asi.22784.
19. Lin, Z., Hou, S., Wu, J., The correlation between editorial delay and the ratio of highly cited papers in nature, science and physical review letters. Scientometrics 107:3 (2016), 1457–1464, 10.1007/s11192-016-1936-z.
20. Moustafa, K., Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes. Scientometrics 105:3 (2015), 2249–2251, 10.1007/s11192-015-1617-3.
21. Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D., Are there any frontiers of research performance? Efficiency measurement of funded research projects with the Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis for count data. Journal of Informetrics 11:3 (2017), 613–628 pii:S1751157716303741.
22. Parolo, P.D.B., Pan, R.K., Ghosh, R., Huberman, B.A., Kaski, K., Fortunato, S., Attention decay in science. Journal of Informetrics 9:4 (2015), 734–745 pii:S1751157715200442.
23. Petersen, A.M., Fortunato, S., Pan, R.K., Kaski, K., Penner, O., Rungi, A., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, H.E., Pammolli, F., Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:43 (2014), 15316–15321, 10.1073/pnas.1323111111.
24. Petersen, J., Hattke, F., Vogel, R., Editorial governance and journal impact: A study of management and business journals. Scientometrics 112:3 (2017), 1593–1614, 10.1007/s11192-017-2434-7.
25. Pinholster, G., Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review. Science 352:6289 (2016), 1067–1068 http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14042738.
26. Resnik, D.B., Elmore, S.A., Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics 22:1 (2016), 169–188, 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5.
27. Righi, S., Takács, K., The miracle of peer review and development in science: An agent-based model. Scientometrics 113:1 (2017), 587–607, 10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y.
28. Sarigöl, E., Garcia, D., Scholtes, I., Schweitzer, F., Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times. Scientometrics, 2017, 10.1007/s11192-017-2309-y.
29. Schneier, B., Applied cryptography: Protocols, algorithms, and source code in C. 2nd ed., 1996, Wiley, New York.
30. Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A., 2017, Influence of reviewer interaction network on long-term citations: A case study of the scientific peer-review system of the Journal of High Energy Physics. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170501089S.
31. Siler, K., Lee, K., Beroc, L., Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:2 (2015), 360–365.
32. Squazzoni, F., Gandelli, C., Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure. Journal of Informetrics 6:2 (2012), 265–275 pii:S1751157711001179.
33. Squazzoni, F., Gandelli, C., Opening the black-box of peer review: An agent-based model of scientist behaviour. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(2), 2013, 3 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/2/3.html.
34. Squazzoni, F., Grimaldo, F., Marusic, A., Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data. Nature, 546, 2017, 352, 10.1038/546352a.
35. Teele, D.L., Thelen, K., Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics 50:2 (2017), 433–447.