Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author's Perspective

The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and effectiveness of reviewers’ contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors’ evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors’ assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors’ opinions, perception of review speed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors’ evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.

[1]  Martin D. Coleman Emotion and the Self-Serving Bias , 2011 .

[2]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2006 .

[3]  M. Strube,et al.  The Multiply Motivated Self , 1995 .

[4]  Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez,et al.  Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author? , 2016, Scientometrics.

[5]  Caroline Reidy It's not the size that matters... , 2011 .

[6]  Robert H. Fletcher,et al.  Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review , 1997 .

[7]  Charles W. Fox,et al.  Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution , 2017, Scientometrics.

[8]  Edmond Sanganyado,et al.  Scientific Peer Review: Guidelines for Informative Peer Review. By J. Matthias Starck. Springer Spektrum: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; 60 pp.; ISBN: 978-3-658-19915-9 , 2018 .

[9]  Christel Fein,et al.  Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE , 2013 .

[10]  Willem-Jan van den Heuvel,et al.  Imperfect referees: Reducing the impact of multiple biases in peer review , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Min Zhang,et al.  Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Peter Moizer,et al.  Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? , 2009 .

[13]  Sara Ellis Simonsen,et al.  Author Perception of Peer Review , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  Frank Davidoff Improving peer review: who's responsible? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia , 2016 .

[16]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Scientometrics of peer review , 2017, Scientometrics.

[17]  R. Lee Lyman,et al.  A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review , 2013 .

[18]  Ricardo Conejo,et al.  Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study , 2015, F1000Research.

[19]  J. I. Reppun Peer Review , 2014, MTZ worldwide.

[20]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. , 2010, Chimia.

[21]  Alon Korngreen Peer-review system could gain from author feedback , 2005, Nature.

[22]  Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez,et al.  Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias , 2016, Scientometrics.

[23]  W. Baker,et al.  Improving peer review: What reviewers can do , 2017, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[24]  A. Marušić,et al.  Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal? , 2003, Archives of medical research.

[25]  Dalibor Fiala,et al.  Editorial Board Membership, Time to Accept, and the Effect on the Citation Counts of Journal Articles , 2016, Publ..

[26]  M. Callaham,et al.  Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. , 2002, JAMA.

[27]  Jan Oosterhaven Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance , 2015, Scientometrics.

[28]  Jeroen Smits,et al.  Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective , 2017, Scientometrics.

[29]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Quantifying the quality of peer reviewers through Zipf’s law , 2015, Scientometrics.

[30]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.