IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v107y2016i1d10.1007_s11192-016-1869-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles

Author

Listed:
  • Olgica Nedić

    (University of Belgrade)

  • Aleksandar Dekanski

    (University of Belgrade)

Abstract

Number of researchers, journals and articles has significantly increased in the last few years and peer review is still the most reliable instrument to sort out innovative, valuable, scientifically sound information from the pool of submitted results. Editors and publishers join their efforts to improve peer review process and to be able to do so properly, they need “field information” from contributors. Editorial board of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society performed its own survey to find out what reviewers recognize as priority criteria in manuscript evaluation and whether the professional background (title, number of years in research or experience in reviewing) influences these criteria. Most reviewers declared that they consider peer review as an essential component of the scientific professionalism. Scientific contribution and originality were the most important criteria in the evaluation of papers. Most reviewers preferred to see conclusions completely supported by experimental data, without additional speculations. Although there were no large differences between early stage and experienced researchers, early stage researchers and less experienced reviewers used grade 5 (indicating the highest priority) much more often in their evaluation of priority criteria than experienced researchers and/or reviewers, suggesting possible evolution of tolerance with experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Olgica Nedić & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2016. "Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 15-26, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:107:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1869-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1869-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-1869-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-1869-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    2. Bailey, Charles D. & Hermanson, Dana R. & Louwers, Timothy J., 2008. "An examination of the peer review process in accounting journals," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 55-72.
    3. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    4. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-1, July.
    7. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-2, January.
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Irina Nast & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejec," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(3), pages 415-432, December.
    9. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-1, December.
    10. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    11. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    12. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-1, November.
    13. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    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. Niccolò Casnici & Francisco Grimaldo & Nigel Gilbert & Pierpaolo Dondio & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 533-546, October.
    2. Yu-Wei Chang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2021. "Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Drahomira Herrmannova & Robert M. Patton & Petr Knoth & Christopher G. Stahl, 2018. "Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 239-262, April.
    4. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.

    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. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    2. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    3. Embiya Celik & Nuray Gedik & Güler Karaman & Turgay Demirel & Yuksel Goktas, 2014. "Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1837-1853, March.
    4. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Christophe Weymuth & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 493-506, May.
    6. Drahomira Herrmannova & Robert M. Patton & Petr Knoth & Christopher G. Stahl, 2018. "Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 239-262, April.
    7. Michael McAleer & Judit Olah & Jozsef Popp, 2018. "Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-014/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Markus Wolf & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 843-856, June.
    9. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-12, October.
    10. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Evaluating altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1131-1143, February.
    11. Akram Osman & Naomie Salim & Faisal Saeed, 2019. "Quality dimensions features for identifying high-quality user replies in text forum threads using classification methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, May.
    12. Jie Zhao & Jianfei Wang & Suping Fang & Peiquan Jin, 2018. "Towards Sustainable Development of Online Communities in the Big Data Era: A Study of the Causes and Possible Consequence of Voting on User Reviews," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Makri, Katerina & Papadas, Karolos & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., 2021. "Global social networking sites and global identity: A three-country study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 482-492.
    14. Chetty, Krish & Aneja, Urvashi & Mishra, Vidisha & Gcora, Nozibele & Josie, Jaya, 2018. "Bridging the digital divide in the G20: Skills for the new age," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-20.
    15. SeungGwan Lee & DaeHo Lee, 2018. "A personalized channel recommendation and scheduling system considering both section video clips and full video clips," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2018. "The Productivity of US Postsecondary Institutions," NBER Chapters, in: Productivity in Higher Education, pages 31-66, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Catalina Granda & Franz Hamann, 2015. "Informality, Saving and Wealth Inequality in Colombia," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 88196, Inter-American Development Bank.
    18. Zhan Wang, 2021. "Social media brand posts and customer engagement," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(6), pages 685-699, November.
    19. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Scientific review; Criteria; Reviewer background;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Z00 - Other Special Topics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:scient:v:107:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1869-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.