Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons

Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

This study attempts to analyse the relationship between the peer-review activity of scholars registered in Publons and their research performance as reflected in Google Scholar. Using a scientometric approach, this work explores correlations between peer-review measures and bibliometric indicators. In addition, decision trees are used to explore which researchers (according to discipline, academic status and gender) make most of the reviews and which of them accept most of the papers, assuming that these are reasonable proxies for reviewing quality. Results show that there is a weak correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer-review activity. The decision tree analysis suggests that established male academics made the most reviews, while young female scholars are the most demanding reviewers. These results could help editors to select good reviewers as well as opening a new source of data for scientometrics analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, this practice could affect the efficiency of the service and the owners ask to be contacted for future studies or use the publicly available API (https://publons.com/api/).

  2. Data on this study are publicly available in http://hdl.handle.net/10760/29799.

References

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87(3), 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, N., Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., & Evans, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 231–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1841–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1323–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaham, M. L., Baxt, W. G., Waeckerle, J. F., & Wears, R. L. (1998). Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 229–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaham, M., & McCulloch, C. (2011). Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 57(2), 141–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S., & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214(4523), 881–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. R., Hanson, K. C., Hasler, C. T., Clark, T. D., Hinch, S. G., & Cooke, S. J. (2010). Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: A case study of ecology journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A. T., McNutt, R. A., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1993). The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(8), 422–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. R., Williams, E. S., & Lundberg, G. D. (1994). Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? Jama, 272(2), 139–142.

  • Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 237–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015(373), 2393–2395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassirer, J. P., & Campion, E. W. (1994). Peer review: Crude and understudied, but indispensable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 96–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e93949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliewer, M. A., Freed, K. S., DeLong, D. M., Pickhardt, P. J., & Provenzale, J. M. (2005). Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184(6), 1731–1735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1321–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M. N. (2014). Review of the ethics and etiquettes of time management of manuscript peer review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(4), 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurihara, Y., & Colletti, P. M. (2013). How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts. American Journal of Roentgenology, 201(3), 468–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantz, B. (2015). Machine learning with R. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, E. J. (2003). Fraud shows peer review flaws. Industrial Physicist, 8(6), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, J. A., & Hastak, M. (2007). Segmentation approaches in data-mining: A comparison of RFM, CHAID, and logistic regression. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 656–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway, N. R., Gutowsky, L. F., Wilson, A. D., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R., et al. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0132557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opthof, T., Coronel, R., & Janse, M. J. (2002). The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: Priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovascular Research, 56(3), 339–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxman, A. D., Guyatt, G. H., Singer, J., Goldsmith, C. H., Hutchison, B. G., Milner, R. A., et al. (1991). Agreement among reviewers of review articles. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(1), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M., & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003–2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautasso, M., & Schäfer, H. (2009). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84(2), 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(02), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, G. P., Donovan, S. L., & Davidoff, F. (1998). Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: Characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 227–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritschard, G. (2014). CHAID and earlier supervised tree methods. In J. J. McArdle & G. Ritschard (Eds.), Contemporary issues in exploratory data mining in the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 123(9), 1964–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriger, D. L., Kadera, S. P., & von Elm, E. (2016). Are reviewers’ scores influenced by citations to their own work? An analysis of submitted manuscripts and peer reviewer reports. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 67(3), 401–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39(1), 90–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy, 42(1), 287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stossel, T. P. (1985). Reviewer status and review quality. New England Journal of Medicine, 312(10), 658–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. R., & Watkins, D. S. (1998). Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications. Scientometrics, 41(3), 335–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(1), 9–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, G. D. L., & Collins, H. M. (1991). New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 322–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. ASIS&T monograph series. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, D. A., Benner, R. S., Petersen, R., Newcomb, R., & Scott, J. R. (2010). Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(10), 1919–1923.

  • Yankauer, A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1338–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cybermetrics Lab, Madrid, Spain

    José Luis Ortega

Authors
  1. José Luis Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Luis Ortega.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortega, J.L. Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons. Scientometrics 112, 947–962 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6

Keywords

search

Navigation