Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review
- 297 Downloads
While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system.
KeywordsSocial peer review Scholarly communication Social computing
JEL classification3.010: Adoption 3.540: Virtual Communities 3.550: Web 2.0 2.20.9: Surveys
We like to thank two anonymous reviewers as well as the special issue editors for their valuable feedback. We also thank Springer Science+Business Media for their support in the sample acquisition phase.
- Abrahamson E., & Bartner L. R. (1990). When do bandwagon diffusions roll? How far do they go? And when do they roll backwards?: A computer simulation. Academy of Management Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Buhl, H. U., Müller, G., Fridgen, G., & Röglinger, M. (2012). Business and information systems engineering: a complementary approach to information systems-what we can learn from the past and may conclude from present reflection on the future. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Chong A. Y. L., & Ngai E. W. (2013). What influences travellers' adoption of a location-based social media service for their travel planning?.In Proceedings of the 2013 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2013). Jeju Island.Google Scholar
- Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
- Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Hess, T., & Hoerndlein, C. (2015). Incentives and more: four aspects that every innovation in scholarly communication needs to consider—answer to “Kingsley/Kennan: open access: the whipping boy for problems in scholarly publishing”. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 37(18), 373–377.Google Scholar
- Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 123–139. Google Scholar
- Hoerndlein C., Benlian A., Hess T. (2012). Institutional influences in individual-level innovation adoption outside organizational contexts: A scale development study. In Proceedings of the 33th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2012). Orlando.Google Scholar
- Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440.Google Scholar
- Kingsley, D. A., & Kennan, M. A. (2015). Open access: the whipping boy for problems in scholarly publishing. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(18), 329–350.Google Scholar
- Lincoln, B. (1995). Book review “the new institutionalism in organizational research” (edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. Dimaggio). Social Forces, 73(3), 1147–1148.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Nistor, N., Baltes, B., Dascălu, M., Mihăilă, D., Smeaton, G., & Trăuşan-Matu, Ş. (2014). Participation in virtual academic communities of practice under the influence of technology acceptance and community factors. A learning analytics application. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Priem J., & Hemminger B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15(7). http://firstmonday.org/article/viewArticle/2874/257022.
- Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.Google Scholar
- TechCrunch (2015). Academia pushes a new kind of peer review for research with ‘sessions’. http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/academia/. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.
- Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.Google Scholar