The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals

Nature Communications

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Bravo, Giangiacomo ^a   Grimaldo, Francisco ^b   López Iñesta, Emilia ^b   Mehmani, Bahar ^c   Squazzoni, Flaminio ^d  

^a LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^c ELSEVIER MASSON   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; IDENTITY; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PILOT STUDY; PUBLISHING;

EID: 85060132626     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Walker, R. & Rocha da Silva, P. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Front. Neurosci. 9, 169 (2015)
2. Teele, D. L. & Thelen, K. Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 50, 433–447 (2017)
3. Siler, K., Lee, K. & Bero, L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 360–365 (2015)
4. Strang, D. & Siler, K. Revising as reframing: Original submissions versus published papers in Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005 to 2009. Sociol. Theor. 33, 71–96 (2015)
5. Balietti, S., Goldstone, R. L. & Helbing, D. Peer review and competition in the art exhibition game. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8414–8419 (2016)
6. Jubb, M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Lear. Publ. 29, 13–21 (2016)
7. Wicherts, J. M. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS ONE 11, 1–19 (2016)
8. Tennant, J. et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res. 6, 1151 (2017)
9. Wang, P. & Tahamtan, I. The state of the art of open peer review: early adopters. Proc. ASIS T 54, 819–820 (2017)
10. Smith, R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 318, 4–5 (1999)
11. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L. & Wilkinson, G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Psychiatry 176, 47–51 (2000)
12. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E. & Davidoff, F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287, 2784–2786 (2002)
13. Ross-Hellauer, T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 6, 588 (2017)
14. Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A. & Schmidt, B. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE 12, 1–28 (2017)
15. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N. & Smith, R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318, 23–27 (1999)
16. Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P. & Boutron, I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 14, 85 (2016)
17. Rodríguez‐Bravo, B. et al. Peer review: the experience and views of early career researchers. Learn. Publ. 30, 269–277 (2017)
18. Bravo, G., Farjam, M., Grimaldo Moreno, F., Birukou, A. & Squazzoni, F. Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals. J. Informetr. 12, 101–112 (2018)
19. Benjamin, D. J. et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 6–10 (2017)
20. Almquist, M. et al. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science. PLoS ONE 12, 1–13 (2017)
21. Pöschl, U. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6, 33 (2012)
22. Kriegeskorte, N. Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6, 79 (2012)
23. Fang, F. C. & Casadevall, A. Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infect. Immunol. 83, 1229–1233 (2015)
24. Edwards, M. A. & Siddhartha, R. Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Env. Sci. Eng. 34, 51–61 (2017)
25. Grimaldo, F., Marusic, A. & Squazzoni, F. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015). PLoS ONE 13, 1–14 (2018)
26. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G. & Takacs, K. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Res. Policy 42, 287–294 (2013)
27. Tomkins, A., Zhang, M. & Heavlin, W. D. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12708–12713 (2017)
28. Squazzoni, F., Grimaldo, F. & Marusic, A. Publishing: journals could share peer-review data. Nature 546, 352 (2017)
29. Bird, S., Klein, E. & Loper, E. Natural Language Processing with Python 1st edn, (O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, 2009)
30. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2018)
31. Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis. Second Edition, (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2002)