IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i1d10.1007_s11192-022-04552-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Ying He

    (Tianjin Normal University)

  • Kun Tian

    (California State University Chico)

  • Xiaoran Xu

    (Tianjin Normal University)

Abstract

In this paper we conduct a validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Taking the Open Access Journals (OAJ) in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) as the research objects, we crawled the internet to gather their relevant data. Based on the method of categorical variable assignment, a quantitative analysis was performed on the qualitative factors that affect the practice modes of open peer review. A multi-dimensional analysis chart is used to illustrate the relationships between the factors. Optimal scale regression modeling and discriminant analysis were also employed to reveal the degrees of influences by the factors. The public categories of “type of open peer review” and “reviewer identity” are closely related to each other. “Reviewer identity” has evident positive influence on “type of open peer review”, and the degree of influence is the highest. Therefore, “reviewer identity” is the primary and most crucial factor affecting open peer review practice modes. “Review report” and “order of review report and publication” are the secondary ones. Whether or not the identities of review experts are open has become the most important factor affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Transparent peer review is currently the most effective practice mode of open peer review. Technologies like block chain can be used to address the psychological uneasiness for the peer review experts who are concerned with privacy issues. The fact that most OAJs use “pre-publication review” shows that open peer review still plays the traditional role of “academic goalkeeper”. Publication of peer review reports actually helps peer review experts augment their reputation, which in turn practically promotes the development of open peer review.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying He & Kun Tian & Xiaoran Xu, 2023. "A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 587-607, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04552-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04552-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04552-x
    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/s11192-022-04552-x?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. Giangiacomo Bravo & Francisco Grimaldo & Emilia López-Iñesta & Bahar Mehmani & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2019. "The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Hermann Schier & Werner Marx & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2011. "Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high‐impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 61-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2022. "Empirical analysis of recent temporal dynamics of research fields: Annual publications in chemistry and related areas as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2015. "The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2187-2188, March.
    5. Haunschild, Robin & Daniels, Angela D. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2022. "Scores of a specific field-normalized indicator calculated with different approaches of field-categorization: Are the scores different or similar?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    7. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    8. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1954-1962, October.
    10. Tirthankar Ghosal & Sandeep Kumar & Prabhat Kumar Bharti & Asif Ekbal, 2022. "Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-29, January.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2013. "The proposal of a broadening of perspective in evaluative bibliometrics by complementing the times cited with a cited reference analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 84-88.
    12. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.
    13. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx & Andreas Barth, 2013. "The Normalization of Citation Counts Based on Classification Systems," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-9, August.
    14. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2016. "Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 875-887.
    15. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    16. Serge P J M Horbach, 2021. "No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic [COVID-19 Medical Papers Have Fewer Women First Authors than Expected]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 231-239.
    17. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    18. Zhang, Guangyao & Xu, Shenmeng & Sun, Yao & Jiang, Chunlin & Wang, Xianwen, 2022. "Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    19. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).

    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:128:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04552-x. 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.