IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v95y2013i3d10.1007_s11192-012-0845-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Cassidy R. Sugimoto

    (Indiana University)

  • Blaise Cronin

    (Indiana University)

Abstract

This study tests for evidence of gaming and attention mongering—here termed ego bias—in the scholarly peer review process. We explore the extent to which authors cite the target journal and its editor and also the relationship between targeted references and editorial decisions. We examine referee reports for the presence and type of references and determine the extent to which reviewers cite their own work in their reports. Our results are based on a sample of 442 manuscripts and 927 referee reports submitted to the Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology. We find little evidence that editors, authors or reviewers use the peer review process as an opportunity to play citation games.

Suggested Citation

  • Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:95:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0845-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z
    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/s11192-012-0845-z?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. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 262-272, October.
    2. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2003. "A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 166(3), pages 279-300, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Ángel Borrego & Maite Barrios & Anna Villarroya & Candela Ollé, 2010. "Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: a gender perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 93-101, April.
    5. Tove Faber Frandsen & Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2011. "Praise the bridge that carries you over: Testing the flattery citation hypothesis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(5), pages 807-818, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2009. "Bias in the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 3-12, January.
    8. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    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. Eduardo Kunzel Teixeira & Mirian Oliveira, 2018. "Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1853-1869, December.
    2. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    3. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.

    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. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
    2. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    3. Teplitskiy, Misha & Acuna, Daniel & Elamrani-Raoult, Aïda & Körding, Konrad & Evans, James, 2018. "The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1825-1841.
    4. Eduardo Kunzel Teixeira & Mirian Oliveira, 2018. "Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1853-1869, December.
    5. Bramoullé, Yann & Goyal, Sanjeev, 2016. "Favoritism," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 16-27.
    6. 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.
    7. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Thanh-Hang Pham & Manh-Toan Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 963-977, May.
    9. Paul W. Grimes & Charles A. Register, 1997. "Career Publications and Academic Job Rank: Evidence from the Class of 1968," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 82-92, March.
    10. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Robin, Stéphane & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2014. "Ingratiation: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 16-38.
    12. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    13. Patrícia Martinková & Dan Goldhaber & Elena Erosheva, 2018. "Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    14. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    15. Brogaard, Jonathan & Engelberg, Joseph & Parsons, Christopher A., 2014. "Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 251-270.
    16. Cherkashin, Ivan & Demidova, Svetlana & Imai, Susumu & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 120-132, February.
    17. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    18. Di Vaio, Gianfranco & Waldenström, Daniel & Weisdorf, Jacob, 2012. "Citation success: Evidence from economic history journal publications," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 92-104.
    19. Allen Bellas & Lea-Rachel Kosnik, 2019. "Which leading journal leads? Idea diffusion in economics research journals," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 901-921, September.
    20. Faria João R & Mixon Franklin G & Upadhyaya Kamal P, 2018. "Editor Reputation and Journal Quality: The Case of Regional Economic Association Journals," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, January.

    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:95:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0845-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.