Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review
- 826 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPeer review Bias Scholarly communication Citation analysis Scientometrics
- Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. In: B. Cronin (Ed.). Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199–245.Google Scholar
- Bourne, P.E., Clark, T., Dale, R., de Waard, A., Herman, I., Hovy, E., Shotton, D. (Eds.). (2012). Force11 Maniesto: Improving future research communication and e-scholarship. White paper. Retrieved online at: http://force11.org/white_paper.
- Brogaard, J., Engelberg, J., & Parsons, C. A. (2011). Network position and productivity: evidence from journal editor rotations. Retrieved from: http://www.hbs.edu/units/finance/pdf/BEP_11_09_Final.pdf.
- Chubin, D. E. & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and US science policy. Stony Brook: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Clarke, M. (2008). Jim Testa interview at the Thomson Citation Impact Center. Citations in Science—Don’t Quote Me on That forum. Retrieved from: http://network.nature.com/groups/citation-science/forum/topics/2091.
- Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201.Google Scholar
- Daniel, H. -D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. Germany: Wiley-VCH. Published online 16 July, 2004. doi:10.1002/3527602208.
- Davis, P. (2012). Citation cartel journals denied 2011 Impact Factor. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/29/citation-cartel-journals-denied-2011-impact-factor/.
- Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). A lucrative seat at the table: are editorial board members generally over-cited in their own journals? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of ASIS&T, 47, 10.Google Scholar
- Grant, B. (2009). Citation amnesia: The results. The Scientist. Retrieved from: http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55801/.
- Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., Bond, N. (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 (Statistics in Society), 166(3), 279–300.Google Scholar
- Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 194–203.Google Scholar
- Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2012). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that’s devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available online at: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Number-That-s-Devouring/26481.
- Shatz, D. (2004). Peer review: a critical inquiry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar