IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i3d10.1007_s11192-025-05264-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the sustainability of supply–demand in peer review system: an analysis based on scholars’ research and review activities

Author

Listed:
  • Houqiang Yu

    (Sun Yat-sen University)

  • Yian Liang

    (Sun Yat-sen University)

  • Yinghua Xie

    (Sun Yat-sen University)

Abstract

The peer review system’s supply–demand is critical for the sustainability of the entire scientific ecosystem, but is rarely explored. This paper proposes an angle on understanding the supply–demand of the system. From this perspective, we investigate the empirical relationship between scholars’ research and review activities, to uncover the micro mechanism behind the peer review system’s supply–demand, and provide strategies for sustaining the system. A comprehensive dataset is developed by integrating three databases, the OpenAlex (bibliometric database), ORCID (author identification database), and Publons (peer review records database), allowing us to explore the dynamic interactions between scholars’ research and review activities. In total, the review and bibliometric data of 179,737 scholars worldwide across all disciplines are obtained. Through the fixed effect models, it is observed that, when scholars’ research activities increase, there is also an increased tendency on their review activities. This positive effect indicates the self-organization nature of the peer review system’s supply–demand, which plays an important role in maintaining the sustainability of the system. Other analyses show that scientific collaboration, funding, and interdisciplinarity can improve the above effect; the gender of scholars also have heterogeneities. These findings bring policy implications, which contribute to achieving a sustainable functioning of the overall scientific communication ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Houqiang Yu & Yian Liang & Yinghua Xie, 2025. "Understanding the sustainability of supply–demand in peer review system: an analysis based on scholars’ research and review activities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1547-1569, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05264-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05264-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05264-8
    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/s11192-025-05264-8?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. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Greece," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 7-93.
    2. Arnold, Austin & Cafer, Anne & Green, John & Haines, Seena & Mann, Georgianna & Rosenthal, Meagen, 2021. "“Perspective: Promoting and fostering multidisciplinary research in universities”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Vincent Raoult, 2020. "How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Weihua Li & Sam Zhang & Zhiming Zheng & Skyler J. Cranmer & Aaron Clauset, 2022. "Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the United Kingdom," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(3), pages 7-114.
    6. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Denmark," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 7-125.
    7. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2017. "The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 587-607, October.
    8. Jacob, Brian A. & Lefgren, Lars, 2011. "The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1168-1177.
    9. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the European Community," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 127-261.
    10. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    11. Tim Vines & Loren Rieseberg & Harry Smith, 2010. "No crisis in supply of peer reviewers," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1041-1041, December.
    12. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the United States," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 95-200.
    13. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(3), pages 115-214.
    14. Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Diversity and interdisciplinarity: how can one distinguish and recombine disparity, variety, and balance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2113-2121, September.
    15. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2015. "Coauthorship networks: A directed network approach considering the order and number of coauthors," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2685-2696, December.
    16. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    17. Li Zhang & Wei Lu & Jinqing Yang, 2023. "LAGOS‐AND: A large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 168-185, February.
    18. Maria Petrescu & Anjala S. Krishen, 2022. "The evolving crisis of the peer-review process," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(3), pages 185-186, September.
    19. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    20. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 785-793, September.
    21. 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.
    22. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou, 2015. "Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1323-1332, July.
    23. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    24. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    25. Federico Bianchi & Francisco Grimaldo & Giangiacomo Bravo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1401-1420, September.
    26. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Canada," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 263-387.
    27. Gregory B. Northcraft & Ann E. Tenbrunsel, 2011. "Effective Matrices, Decision Frames, and Cooperation in Volunteer Dilemmas: A Theoretical Perspective on Academic Peer Review," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1277-1285, October.
    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. 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.
    2. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    3. Byoung-Kwon Ko & Yeongkyun Jang & Jae-Suk Yang, 2024. "Universalism and particularism in the recommendations of the nobel prize for science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 847-868, February.
    4. Sun, Zhuanlan & Clark Cao, C. & Ma, Chao & Li, Yiwei, 2023. "The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Siddarth Srinivasan & Jamie Morgenstern, 2021. "Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review," Papers 2109.00923, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    8. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    10. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    11. Chaocheng He & Jiang Wu & Qingpeng Zhang, 2021. "Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4005-4037, May.
    12. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    13. Chang, Le & Zhang, Huiying & Zhang, Chao, 2024. "Should we circumvent knowledge path dependency? The impact of conventional learning and collaboration diversity on knowledge creation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    14. Liu, Meijun & Jaiswal, Ajay & Bu, Yi & Min, Chao & Yang, Sijie & Liu, Zhibo & Acuña, Daniel & Ding, Ying, 2022. "Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    15. José Cendejas Bueno & Cecilia Font de Villanueva, 2015. "Convergence of inflation with a common cycle: estimating and modelling Spanish historical inflation from the 16th to the 18th centuries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1643-1665, June.
    16. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "On the temporal diversity of knowledge in science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    17. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    18. Mike Thelwall & Nabeil Maflahi, 2020. "Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 968-978, August.
    19. Alex J. Yang & Huimin Xu & Ying Ding & Meijun Liu, 2024. "Unveiling the dynamics of team age structure and its impact on scientific innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6127-6148, October.
    20. Krammer, Sorin M.S. & Belkouja, Mustapha & Yoon, David, 2019. "Research performance of teams in Business and Management: The impact of team size, knowledge diversity and international diversity," MPRA Paper 104548, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 06 Jun 2019.

    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:130:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05264-8. 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.