IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2018i1p1-d192809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ivana Drvenica

    (Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Giangiacomo Bravo

    (Department of Social Studies, Centre for Data Intensive Sciences and Applications, Linnaeus University, 35195 Växjö, Sweden)

  • Lucija Vejmelka

    (Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Aleksandar Dekanski

    (Department of Electrochemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Olgica Nedić

    (Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy (INEP), University of Belgrade, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivana Drvenica & Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucija Vejmelka & Aleksandar Dekanski & Olgica Nedić, 2018. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-:d:192809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/1/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/1/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alon Korngreen, 2005. "Peer-review system could gain from author feedback," Nature, Nature, vol. 438(7066), pages 282-282, November.
    2. Flaminio Squazzoni & Elise Brezis & Ana Marušić, 2017. "Scientometrics of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 501-502, October.
    3. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    4. Jan Oosterhaven, 2015. "Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 261-265, April.
    5. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    6. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 967-986, March.
    7. Dalibor Fiala & Cecília Havrilová & Martin Dostal & Ján Paralič, 2016. "Editorial Board Membership, Time to Accept, and the Effect on the Citation Counts of Journal Articles," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-8, July.
    8. Charles W. Fox, 2017. "Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 465-477, October.
    9. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1377-1395, November.
    10. Yun Wei Zhao & Chi-Hung Chi & Willem-Jan Heuvel, 2015. "Imperfect referees: Reducing the impact of multiple biases in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2340-2356, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    2. Olgica Nedić & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2016. "Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 15-26, April.
    3. Chahed, Yasmine & Charnock, Robert & Du Rietz, Sabina & Joseph Lennon, Niels & Palermo, Tommaso & Parisi, Cristiana & Pflueger, Dane & Sundström, Andreas & Toh, Dorothy & Yu, Lichen, 2024. "The value of research activities “other than” publishing articles: reflections on an experimental workshop series," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121656, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Cuenca Botey, Luis Emilio & Célérier, Laure, 2023. "On the relentless labour of deconstructing domination logics: The case of decolonial critical accounting research in South America," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    5. Rolf Uwe Fülbier & Thorsten Sellhorn, 2023. "Understanding and improving the language of business: How accounting and corporate reporting research can better serve business and society," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(6), pages 1089-1124, August.
    6. Michael C Grant & Luke Geoghegan & Marc Arbyn & Zakaria Mohammed & Luke McGuinness & Emily L Clarke & Ryckie G Wade, 2020. "The prevalence of symptoms in 24,410 adults infected by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 148 studies from 9 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    8. Gendron, Yves, 2015. "Accounting academia and the threat of the paying-off mentality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 168-176.
    9. Nicholas Yee Liang Hing & Xin Ci Wong & Pei Xuan Kuan & Mohan Dass Pathmanathan & Mohd Aizuddin Abdul Rahman & Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy, 2022. "Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Humphrey, Christopher & Gendron, Yves, 2015. "What is going on? The sustainability of accounting academia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 47-66.
    11. Zhuanlan Sun & C. Clark Cao & Sheng Liu & Yiwei Li & Chao Ma, 2024. "Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    13. Dixon, Keith, 2013. "Growth and dispersion of accounting research about New Zealand before and during a National Research Assessment Exercise: Five decades of academic journals bibliometrics," MPRA Paper 51100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Püttmann, Vitus & Thomsen, Stephan L. & Trunzer, Johannes, 2020. "Zur Relevanz von Ausstattungsunterschieden für Forschungsleistungsvergleiche: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Deutschland," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-679, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Mar 2021.
    15. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    16. Alberto Quagli & Francesco Avallone & Paola Ramassa, 2016. "The Real Impact Factor and the Gap between Accounting Research and Practice," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 29-57.
    17. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.
    18. Zehra Taşkın & Abdülkadir Taşkın & Güleda Doğan & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2022. "Factors affecting time to publication in information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7499-7515, December.
    19. Radcliffe, Vaughan S., 2011. "Public secrecy in government auditing revisited," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 722-732.
    20. Gassen, Joachim, 2014. "Causal inference in empirical archival financial accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 535-544.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-:d:192809. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.