IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/t2py5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Low and high-impact-factor journals: which has better peer review quality?

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Minh-Hoang

Abstract

Do high-impact-factor journals have better peer review quality than low-impact-factor journals? Attempting to shed light on the relationship between the journal impact factor and quality, a group of researchers, led by Anna Severin (University of Bern), have recently examined 10,000 peer review reports submitted to 1,644 medical and life sciences journals. They use artificial intelligence to analyze two measures proxying the peer review quality: thoroughness and helpfulness. While sentences covering topic categories, materials and techniques, presentation and reporting, outcomes and discussion, importance and relevance are employed to gauge thoroughness, sentences that provide recommendations and solutions, examples, praise, or criticism are used to estimate helpfulness.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2022. "Low and high-impact-factor journals: which has better peer review quality?," OSF Preprints t2py5, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:t2py5
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/t2py5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/63481ab924289c3125c13b14/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/t2py5?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Van Noorden, 2022. "The researchers using AI to analyse peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 609(7927), pages 455-455, September.
    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.

      More about this item

      NEP fields

      This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

      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:osf:osfxxx:t2py5. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

      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.