Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1

Campanario, Juan Miguel

doi:10.1177/1075547098019003002

Cited by 158 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 140 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, “confirmatory bias” is theorized to lead to conservatism, biasing reviewers against innovative methods or results contrary to dominant theoretical perspectives ( Chubin & Hackett, 1990; Garcia et al , 2016; Mahoney, 1977). Finally, factors like the pursuit of “impact” and “excellence” ( Moore et al , 2017) mean that editors and reviewers seem primed to prefer positive results over negative or neutral ones ( Bardy, 1998; Dickersin et al , 1992; Fanelli, 2010; Ioannidis, 1998), and to disfavour replication studies ( Campanario, 1998; Kerr et al , 1977). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is open peer review? A systematic review

Ross-Hellauer

2017

F1000Res

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with a myriad of overlapping and often contradictory definitions. While the term is used by some to refer to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are then systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers a total of 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature. Conclusions: Based on this work, I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the ethos of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is open peer review? A systematic review

Ross-Hellauer

2017

F1000Res

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These assumptions fall near the middle of actual editorial practices (Campanario 1998a, Schminke 2002. In economics and finance, editors commonly send a manuscript to only a single reviewer, who makes a final decision.…”

Section: What Is the Value Of A Manuscript?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication

Starbuck

2005

Organization Science

384

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Articles in high-prestige journals receive more citations and more applause than articles in less-prestigious journals, but how much more do these articles contribute to knowledge? This article uses a statistical theory of review processes to draw inferences about differences value between articles in more-prestigious versus less-prestigious journals. This analysis indicates that there is much overlap in articles in different prestige strata. Indeed, theory implies that about half of the articles published are not among the best ones submitted to those journals, and some of the manuscripts that belong in the highest-value 20% have the misfortune to elicit rejections from as many as five journals. Some social science departments and business schools strongly emphasize publication in prestigious journals. Although one can draw inferences about an author’s average manuscript from the percentage in top-tier journals, the confidence limits for such inferences are wide. A focus on prestigious journals may benefit the most prestigious departments or schools but add randomness to the decisions of departments or schools that are not at the very top. Such a focus may also impede the development of knowledge when mediocre research receives the endorsement of high visibility.

show abstract

“…The study of journals, the vector of literature, is essential to analyze the knowledge exchange. Traditional journal evaluation studies depend on peer review and are time-consuming (Campanario 1998). Bibliometrics scientists have developed many ways to evaluate journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Journal’s Integrated Impact Index: a new indicator for journal evaluation

Wang

Dong

et al. 2011

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal impact factor (JIF) has been used for journal evaluation over a long time, but also accompanied by the continuing controversy. In this study, a new indicator, the Journal's Integrated Impact Index (JIII) has been proposed for journal evaluation. In the JIII, one journal's average citations per paper, total citations, and all journals' average level of average citations per paper and total citations have been used to characterize the integrated impact of journals. Some contrastive analyses were carried out between JIII and JIF. The results show some interesting properties of the new indicator, and also reveal some relevant relationships among JIII, JIF, and other bibliometric indicators.

show abstract

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1

Cited by 158 publications

References 140 publications

What is open peer review? A systematic review

What is open peer review? A systematic review

How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication

The Journal’s Integrated Impact Index: a new indicator for journal evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About